kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Disagree completely.
Do you believe in freedom of speech?
- Thread starter Jonezy
- Start date
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You think it's ok for protesters to tell young girls that they are murderers as they enter an abortion clinic?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I don't think it's OK, no, but I'm not going to deny them the chance to express their opinion any more than I'm going to deny an animal rights protestor the chance to call an animal testing scientist a murderer, or a protestor calling someone who works at BAE a murderer either.
The big big problem with your approach is which issues are the ones where the right to yell at someone is outweighed by that persons right to not be yelled at? No doubt you have in your mind a whole list of stuff where such protest would be 'OK' and others where it wouldn't, but I'd put money on it that someone else would disagree with your list and produce another one.
The big big problem with your approach is which issues are the ones where the right to yell at someone is outweighed by that persons right to not be yelled at? No doubt you have in your mind a whole list of stuff where such protest would be 'OK' and others where it wouldn't, but I'd put money on it that someone else would disagree with your list and produce another one.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is what has to be decided, yes. Protecting the vulnerable is a good place to start. Balancing the right to act with the right not to be acted on is not always straightforward. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
See, you're copping out. A worthwhile society won't need your kinds of restrictions because people would know how their behaviour affects others, not have to have it 'decided' upon but others...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I think it is you that is copping out. A worthwhile society will protect the weak and vulnerable. You sound like a Utopian communist who believes that when society is just, everyone will act justly.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
In a worthwhile society, people won't have to be told to protect the vulnerable will they? But back to the point, I don't think the girl being yelled at's situation means that someone should be stopped from protesting. Indeed, people like yourself should be out there protecting someone you think is vulnerable...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, they probably will. However just a society may be, it will not be able to control how people relate to others on a day-to-day basis. It will not be able to ensure that all parenting is perfect, that all thought will be good, that all actions are for the common good. We are not all born morally perfect only to have that perfection eroded by an unjust world.
untethered
For industry & decency
Like unborn children?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
No, because, among other things, a woman's right to control over her body comes into play. I would not grant the unborn any rights. The point at which you do grant rights will always be somewhat arbitrary. I would think the point of birth is the sensible place to do it for us. Societies have in other places and times killed new-born children in times of food shortage. Each society has to decide the rules for itself.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
So from your subjective perspective, a woman's right to choose is more important than the 'rights' of an unborn child, an organism that clearly falls under the concept of 'vulnerable'.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes. I would also grant rights to elephants and dolphins but not spiders. This is a subjective business.
chico enrico
No hair shows you care.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Yup, and one that supports a woman's right to choose...but also supports other people's right to say that there isn't...
Here we go again with extreme examples being deployed to justify a blanket ruling. I'd find people spitting hatred at vulnerable young women going into a clinic highly objectionable. But so long as these characters accept the repercussions of their acts then they are free to express themselves.
I was once a great fan of heckling at political meetings. It was sometimes risky stuff (the Labour Party was often as violent as the National Front). But I accepted responsibility for any ensuing repercussions. Heckling is an even riskier endeavor these days. It probably comes under the Prevention of Terrorism.
You are either for free speech or you are not. Once you start imposing conditions then you are NOT for free speech. There's no shame in it. Millions would agree with you.
I was once a great fan of heckling at political meetings. It was sometimes risky stuff (the Labour Party was often as violent as the National Front). But I accepted responsibility for any ensuing repercussions. Heckling is an even riskier endeavor these days. It probably comes under the Prevention of Terrorism.
You are either for free speech or you are not. Once you start imposing conditions then you are NOT for free speech. There's no shame in it. Millions would agree with you.
lights.out.london
Black Flag
You're big on rights. I don't remember Plato mentioning anywhere "...persons right to not be yelled at...".
Can you explain where these rights come from, and what they consist in ie what exactly they are, and why?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
In this case they come from someone's subjective judgement about what is a "right". I think that's the point of Kyser's argument, to some extent.
lights.out.london
Black Flag
Then it isn't much of an argument. Arbitary permission to kill an unborn child carries no more moral authority than arbitary refusal on the part of society to terminate a pregnancy than an order not to shout at people eg outside an abortion clinic.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Yes time and place for everything though.If you want to yell at women going for abortions only fair pro lifers come to your church and protest at why you worship a none exsistant god you women hating nazi.
lights.out.london
Black Flag
I think the pro-lifers would probably accept your argument re outside their church; that's if these 'rights' everyone seems to be bandying about are, in fact, subjective social constructs. Which they are. Obviously. Just like the pro-lifers' 'god'.
untethered
For industry & decency
I think you mean "pro-choicers".
Anyway, they do have a right to do that. Protests against churches, while not common, are not unknown. A bit like protests outside abortion clinics in this country.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
When will America's satanists start tormenting the bible belters?
When it happens, I hope it's on youtube
lights.out.london
Black Flag
untethered
For industry & decency
They're too busy moping in their bedrooms to do anything that energetic.
The right to criticise is something I hold dearly.
US Free speech law seems to have it right.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
If you read the preceeding few posts you'd know that I was in fact arguing against the notion of someone having a right not to be yelled at, but don't let ignorance get in the way of your making a point eh?
This sentence makes no sense.
Quite simply put:
LBJ was saying that FoS can never be absolute because there comes a point where my right to tell someone they're a fuckwit will either cause someone else to take it one stage further and, for the sake of arguemnt, start doorstepping the person you're merely calling a fuckwit; this will then have an impact on the callees life, meaning that their right to live life without let or hindrance is being unduly harmed.
I disagree with this, saying that this vulnerable person can be protected by his mates getting together and shouting louder at the bloke doorstepping him until he goes away, thus everyone gets their right to call matey a fuckwit, and he's also protected by those who don't think he's a fuckwit; this also demonstrates community self-organisation solving a 'problem' without recourse to a state or authoriatrian actor to resolve the situation, which is LBJs solution.
A great example of this is the case of Phelps and his 'God Hates Fags' campaign, often done at the funerals of dead soldiers whom Phelps thinks have been righteously killed for defending a country that 'loves fags'. The situation was resolves by a combination of groups of veterans and/or biker chapters shouting/revving down Phelps disgusting speech so that it couldn't be heard, rather than banning Phelps from attending the funerals of dead servicemen, which would have impinged on his right to yell 'God hates fags' at someone's funeral.
As I've said previously, I personally would remove the law that says you can't publicly declare you want to murder someone - if the fash start rabble rousing to go and march on people's homes, everyone else should start rabble rousing to march on the homes of the fash and protect the homes of those who would be vulnerable. If I stand up and call for GB to be murdered and then have the OB watching my every move for a year, that's a consequence of me openly declaring I want to commit a criminal act.
Freedom of speech, like most rights, requires that people behave in an adult fashion and as far as possible engender their own solutions to the conundrums that it throws up, rather than going runny to the state or some form of authority to take charge.
And before anyone comes at me with 'Well, you said that that chick who wrote the bad poetry about being a lyrical terrorist was justifably prosecuted'...well, first off I don't agree with the law as it stands, but she publicly declared that she was happy to be involved in a criminal act and her poetry arguably called on others to do the same - even without the ridiculous 'anti-terror' laws, what she'd written and publicly stated would have at least warranted someone pointing out to her that what she was doing would be wrong under previous laws concerning the subject.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Is it acceptable to be sympathetic to the points of both kyser and lbj on this thread?
Actually, this is a good thread. See, up pops untethered with his completely objectionable view that fetuses have more rights than idnependently alive human beings, and we're faced with an interesting quandray.
Actually, this is a good thread. See, up pops untethered with his completely objectionable view that fetuses have more rights than idnependently alive human beings, and we're faced with an interesting quandray.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
At its most basic and idealistic level, the state is community self-organisation. Where potentially vulnerable people are being abused for going about their lawful business, it would seem to me to be an abnegation of responsibility for the biggest, most powerful level of community self-organisation to stand by and do nothing.
Similar threads
