Poll: What is Your Position on Freedom of Speech?

[Matt3737]

You are discussing freedom of speech in terms of established laws/rights and deducing its scope and limitations from those laws. A deontological approach to the subject is certainly legitimate, but ultimately becomes a legal discussion. [MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] seems to me, to be discussing the subject of freedom of speech inductively, that is in terms of actual speech and the various restrictions imposed upon it. When is speech not speech? When you're dealing with complex prescriptive legal documents.

There's nothing inductive about it. It's purely subjective. A legal standard has a measure of objectivity to it by which you can base a discussion upon. It's all ultimately arbitrary, but starting with ill-defined terms and then attempting to make accusations about others who aren't using the same terms in the same manner is beyond ridiculous.

Honestly...... If you people spent just one moment to stop floating around in your utopian fantasies and your extensive mid-life crises and nihilism and grounded yourself for just one second, you will see how freedom of speech is CONSTANTLY under threat.

The 14 people that voted against free expression should be ashamed of themselves.

If that didn't help promote freedom of speech, I honestly think those unsatisfied people should sign off of this thread and go play some ping pong. Or as Hitchens said: "Kiss my ass".

I guess, by his reasoning, I'm doing a stand up job of exercising my free speech and criticizing the absurdity of his statements.

He, apparently, still condones child pornography in his unusually vague definitions of free speech as long as they are merely nudes.

 

[ThomasJ79]

He, apparently, still condones child pornography in his unusually vague definitions of free speech as long as they are merely nudes.

I thought he made it quite clear *when he stated child pornography was a crime and not afforded protection as a form of free speech.

 

[JJJA]

So, it's my fault you're making a semantic argument?

Apparently, you're still okay with the distribution of child pornography after the fact. I guess you have all sorts of semantic distinctions we're all not fully aware of despite reprimanding the forum for not following them?

I wasn't proposing an argument. I have, so far, only commented on your argument.

What are you talking about? I've said I want child porn outlawed on the grounds of sexual exploitation and other crimes that simply does not relate to the issue of free speech. You used semantics when trying to suggest I am naive for not including other 'mediums' in the discussion, which should go without saying.

 

[JJJA]

There's nothing inductive about it. It's purely subjective. A legal standard has a measure of objectivity to it by which you can base a discussion upon. It's all ultimately arbitrary, but starting with ill-defined terms and then attempting to make accusations about others who aren't using the same terms in the same manner is beyond ridiculous.







I guess, by his reasoning, I'm doing a stand up job of exercising my free speech and criticizing the absurdity of his statements.

He, apparently, still condones child pornography in his unusually vague definitions of free speech as long as they are merely nudes.

I'm waiting to see your refutation to my main arguments. All you've done is discuss child porn. Exercising free speech by questioning my moral compass in-relation to child porn does not make my arguments 'absurd', but I would hope this is because we have very different approaches to this topic.

 

[Matt3737]

I thought he made it quite clear that he stated child pornography was a crime and not afforded protection as a form of free speech.

That's my point, exactly. He posits it as a crime by association with pedophilia. This doesn't address all the other aspects of the production or distribution of child pornography or how and in what manner society is to classify and address all the numerous aspects of expression that he conveniently ignores by dismissing them as 'non-speech'.

He's simply converted what, by law, is classified as 'non-protected speech' into his new classification of 'non-speech' and then begun berating people for not fully supporting HIS classification of 'speech'. It is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have had the unfortunate opportunity to come across.

 

[Matt3737]

What are you talking about? I've said I want child porn outlawed on the grounds of sexual exploitation and other crimes that simply does not relate to the issue of free speech. You used semantics when trying to suggest I am naive for not including other 'mediums' in the discussion, which should go without saying.

It is very naïve given that isn't a clear definition or standard. Answer this question clearly: Nude pictures of children, not engaged in any sexual activity, are child pornography or a form of artistic expression?

 

[JJJA]

That's my point, exactly. He posits it as a crime by association with pedophilia. This doesn't address all the other aspects of the production or distribution of child pornography or how and in what manner society is to classify and address all the numerous aspects of expression that he conveniently ignores by dismissing them as 'non-speech'.

He's simply converted what, by law, is classified as 'non-protected speech' into his new classification of 'non-speech' and then begun berating people for not fully supporting HIS classification of 'speech'. It is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have had the unfortunate opportunity to come across.

Once again, I must refer back to my very small violin, but you are choosing to continue this discussion, so no matter how unfortunate it is for you, you seem to come back for more. I am simply responding to your accusations. I'm not making up new laws as I go along. I was trying to discuss free expression as the 1st Amendment puts it rather bluntly. You are muddying the waters by discussing the finer points of child porn law when I have repeatedly said I want it outlawed because it is exhibition of children; who else do you think would be the target audience of it other than paedophiles? Why are you so hung up on this one law? You haven't discussed anything I have said apart from a couple of 'absurd' statements.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

There's nothing inductive about it. It's purely subjective. A legal standard has a measure of objectivity to it by which you can base a discussion upon. It's all ultimately arbitrary, but starting with ill-defined terms and then attempting to make accusations about others who aren't using the same terms in the same manner is beyond ridiculous.

Are you claiming that discussing speaking/writing cannot be objective because a the legal principle of freedom of speech is extended to other means of communication/expression?

It just sounds crazy to me that you cannot accept that people might discuss freedom of speech in respect of speaking.

 

[ThomasJ79]

That's my point, exactly. He posits it as a crime by association with pedophilia. This doesn't address all the other aspects of the production or distribution of child pornography or how and in what manner society is to classify and address all the numerous aspects of expression that he conveniently ignores by dismissing them as 'non-speech'.

He's simply converted what, by law, is classified as 'non-protected speech' into his new classification of 'non-speech' and then begun berating people for not fully supporting HIS classification of 'speech'. It is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have had the unfortunate opportunity to come across.

I could be mistaken, but I think he is just stating his opinion that he disagrees with the judicial interpretation that child pornography falls under non-protected speech. His definition of free speech is quite literally his right to say what he wants to say, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

You two just disagree on the definition and passionately disagree, which is exactly what the right to freedom of speech is all about.

 

[JJJA]

I could be mistaken, but I think he is just stating his opinion that he disagrees with the judicial interpretation that child pornography falls under non-protected speech. His definition of free speech is quite literally his right to say what he wants to say, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

You are certainly not mistaken. This is precisely what I mean by free speech.

 

[Matt3737]

Are you claiming that discussing speaking/writing cannot be objective because a the legal principle of freedom of speech is extended to other means of communication/expression?

I have no idea what you're trying to ask. What I am saying is that there is no objective standard to distinguish between 'protected/non-protected speech' or 'speech/non-speech acts'. They are arbitrarily defined categories. Our laws have a long history of setting precedents for what constitutes these categories.

[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] seems to have redefined these categories and doesn't seem to understand that his new definitions are not consistent. I think he thinks that 'pornography' is still speech, but 'child pornography' is not speech without explaining the determining factors. I guess he thinks that the word 'pornography' will simply be stamped on whatever it is so that we can all clearly distinguish it from legitimate artistic expression?



How should we classify this? I don't think [MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] has really thought about anything he's said before.

It just sounds crazy to me that you cannot accept that people might discuss freedom of speech in respect of speaking.

No, that's fine too, but I think if you're going to reprimand someone based on your subjective interpretations then you had better be able to back it up though.

I could be mistaken, but I think he is just stating his opinion that he disagrees with the judicial interpretation that child pornography falls under non-protected speech. His definition of free speech is quite literally his right to say what he wants to say, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

You two just disagree on the definition and passionately disagree, which is exactly what the right to freedom of speech is all about.

That in itself is fine, but I pointed it out because it makes his definition of speech inconsistent with the legal one all the while he is berating others for their lack of supporting it. How are people supposed to read his mind and understand his peculiar legal definitions? If he intended on discussing the differences between his legal definitions and the currently accepted ones, then he should have STARTED doing so before throwing accusations.

You are muddying the waters by discussing the finer points of child porn law when I have repeatedly said I want it outlawed because it is exhibition of children; who else do you think would be the target audience of it other than paedophiles?

Are the waters too muddy for your naiveté? Sorry you disagree, I suppose it is your right to hold inconsistent definitions and then mock others for your incoherent ideology. Am I still entitled to my right to call you out on it?

 

[JJJA]

I have no idea what you're trying to ask. What I am saying is that there is no objective standard to distinguish between 'protected/non-protected speech' or 'speech/non-speech acts'. They are arbitrarily defined categories. Our laws have a long history of setting precedents for what constitutes these categories.

[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] seems to have redefined these categories and doesn't seem to understand that his new definitions are not consistent. I think he thinks that 'pornography' is still speech, but 'child pornography' is not speech without explaining the determining factors. I guess he thinks that the word 'pornography' will simply be stamped on whatever it is so that we can all clearly distinguish it from legitimate artistic expression?

View attachment 26669View attachment 26670

How should we classify this? I don't think [MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] has really thought about anything he's said before.



No, that's fine too, but I think if you're going to reprimand someone based on your subjective interpretations then you had better be able to back it up though.



That in itself is fine, but I pointed it out because it makes his definition of speech inconsistent with the legal one all the while he is berating others for their lack of supporting it. How are people supposed to read his mind and understand his peculiar legal definitions? If he intended on discussing the differences between his legal definitions and the currently accepted ones, then he should have STARTED doing so before throwing accusations.



Are the waters too muddy for your naiveté? Sorry you disagree, I suppose it is your right to hold inconsistent definitions and then mock others for your incoherent ideology. Am I still entitled to my right to call you out on it?

I think it is safe to say I am now wasting my time.

 

[Matt3737]

I think it is safe to say I am now wasting my time.

Why? Am I not wrong to think that not all speech should be protected under the law? That there are certain forms of speech and expressions that fall under both categories of "a form of speech or expression" and "should not be protected, condoned, or accepted under the law"?

Please explain to me how wrong I am. You've had my undivided attention for a little while now. Explain it to me so that we can be on the same page.

Can we be on the same page if I agree with the same particular practices, behaviors, and phenomenon observable, but I only disagree with the particular definitions, terminology, and classifications you use to describe them?

Would I then be exempt from your previous condemnations?

 

[Azereiah]

We've come to the problem where JJJA is attempting to defend "Freedom of all speech and expression, as long as it's speech I agree with", which is in itself the same form of censorship he's arguing against. Inconsistencies are fun, people.

Perhaps you now understand why I placed my vote in the second position - because some expression is exploitative, dangerous, vile, offensive, or otherwise capable of causing injury (be it financial, social, or physical) to a given party. If you vote to get rid of any and all censorship whatsoever, you open the doors to literally every kind of expression that you're not thinking of because it doesn't fit your narrow definition of what constitutes speech.

Who gets to determine what is and isn't speech? Perhaps we should ban criticisms of the government, since by your definition, it not being legal would make it no longer qualify as speech.

 

[JJJA]

We've come to the problem where JJJA is attempting to defend "Freedom of all speech and expression, as long as it's speech I agree with", which is in itself the same form of censorship he's arguing against. Inconsistencies are fun, people.

Perhaps you now understand why I placed my vote in the second position - because some expression is exploitative, dangerous, vile, offensive, or otherwise capable of causing injury (be it financial, social, or physical) to a given party. If you vote to get rid of any and all censorship whatsoever, you open the doors to literally every kind of expression that you're not thinking of because it doesn't fit your narrow definition of what constitutes speech.

Who gets to determine what is and isn't speech? Perhaps we should ban criticisms of the government, since by your definition, it not being legal would make it no longer qualify as speech.

This is an outright disingenuous lie. You can say what you wish about my opinion, but don't go around spreading bullshit and plastering my name over it. You can spread all of the untruths you wish to, it is your right to do so, but you should always expect a backlash when you lie to a public audience in such a way. I am sure members of the forum will judge your accusation accordingly, but it is quite clear that I have been more than consistent on this topic. You don't agree with me? I couldn't give a toss. I'm defending free speech with or without your lies.

 

[Matt3737]

This is an outright disingenuous lie. You can say what you wish about my opinion, but don't go around spreading bullshit and plastering my name over it. You can spread all of the untruths you wish to, it is your right to do so, but you should always expect a backlash when you lie to a public audience in such a way.

He did exactly that. He stated what he thought your opinion to be. That does seem to be your opinion, as well. You simply don't call it 'censorship'. You call it a 'non-speech act' or a 'crime'.

 

[MrWonka]

Back when I was in school, freedom of speech was always and everywhere advocated as a basic human right. Censorship was considered the first hallmark of tyranny.

Today, it seems as though freedom of speech is often critiqued and treated as being almost synonymous with hate speech.

I think you're confusing censorship with people just condemning ignorance.

Freedom of speech does not mean "the freedom to say whatever you want whenever you want without consequences" it means "the freedom to say whatever you want whenever you want without consequences FROM THE GOVERNMENT."

If you say something incredibly stupid, hateful, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, or just flat out ignorant the people of this country have always reserved the right to judge you appropriately for that. You won't get arrested for saying something racist and idiotic, but individual people will look down on you, judge you, and choose not to be around you or reward you in anyway. That's not the government censoring you that's the free market rejecting the terrible product that you're selling.

 

[JJJA]

I think you're confusing censorship with people just condemning ignorance.

Freedom of speech does not mean "the freedom to say whatever you want whenever you want without consequences" it means "the freedom to say whatever you want whenever you want without consequences FROM THE GOVERNMENT."

If you say something incredibly stupid, hateful, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, or just flat out ignorant the people of this country have always reserved the right to judge you appropriately for that. You won't get arrested for saying something racist and idiotic, but individual people will look down on you, judge you, and choose not to be around you or reward you in anyway. That's not the government censoring you that's the free market rejecting the terrible product that you're selling.

This is exactly what I have been saying. Key word: government.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I think you're confusing censorship with people just condemning ignorance.

Freedom of speech does not mean "the freedom to say whatever you want whenever you want without consequences" it means "the freedom to say whatever you want whenever you want without consequences FROM THE GOVERNMENT."

If you say something incredibly stupid, hateful, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, or just flat out ignorant the people of this country have always reserved the right to judge you appropriately for that. You won't get arrested for saying something racist and idiotic, but individual people will look down on you, judge you, and choose not to be around you or reward you in anyway. That's not the government censoring you that's the free market rejecting the terrible product that you're selling.

Actually, what prompted the creation of this thread was some political debate where I live, to outlaw islamophobic remarks. At present, critique of islamic doctrines is indeed operating at the level of contradicting personal opinions, but it is teetering on entering into an area of law (that's right chaps, government).

 

[MrWonka]

Actually, what prompted the creation of this thread was some political debate where I live, to outlaw islamophobic remarks. At present, critique of islamic doctrines is indeed operating at the level of contradicting personal opinions, but it is teetering on entering into an area of law (that's right chaps, government).

Teetering perhaps, but highly unlikely to actually enter it. If it is reasonable to conclude that your statements are likely to directly lead to violence then you are some what liable.

For instance if I told a hit man that if he killed my wife I'd give him $100 bucks, and then he did in fact kill my wife I could not realistically claim that I was exercising freedom of speech to say what I wanted. Likewise if I told a bunch of known Klan members that a random black guy walking down the street raped a white woman yesterday it's not hard to foresee a high likelihood of bad repercussions from that and you cannot be completely left without guilt for them if they happen.

By the same token when you go around riling up ignorant hicks by telling them that Muslims are destroying America, Immigrants are stealing their country, or a secret black Kenyon Muslim has stolen the white house you are certainly teetering on the edge of intentionally inciting violence. Claiming that you didn't expect the people you're inciting to actually resort to violence will almost certainly be enough to protect you under the law, but you would be wise to add some clarification to you rhetoric about what action you DO intend for your audience to take just to cover your ass.