top | item 10135251

(no title)

jordan0day | 10 years ago

I'm kind of uncomfortable with this line of reasoning, and definitely uncomfortable with this statement:

> '"True freedom of speech" is an awful thing.'

That is, a good use of freedom of speech is to "speak truth to power". Yes, it's awful when freedom of speech is used to kick someone when they're down, but we need to preserve that freedom so that we can kick someone when they're (wrongly) up.

discuss

order

TazeTSchnitzel|10 years ago

That's tyrannical.

Freedom of speech must have limits. Those limits protect the vulnerable.

pdkl95|10 years ago

The entire point of "freedom of speech" is to protect the rights of the person you hate when they say things you find the most dangerous or offensive. You don't need to create a "right" to allow nice people to say nice things to other nice people.

Sure, there are type of speech that I find very damaging to society, but they still have to have the right to speak their mind, or we open a Pandora's Box of troubles when we try to decide which types of speech are "bad".

This really is the real test of any society that describes itself as "free". Do they allow their enemies and troublemakers their equal right to speak? Or is Freedom Of Speech de facto only enjoyed by the classes that already have the power to speak, while others are prevented form having a voice? In the later case, "freedom" little more than marketing.

Also, remember that allowing someone the freedom to speak does not require us to give them a stage or an audience.

15charlimit|10 years ago

Those who are "vulnerable" may choose to either stop participating in speech that offends them or learn not to be vulnerable to such speech.

Attempting to restrict speech is not the answer, has never been an acceptable answer, and will never be an acceptable answer.

makomk|10 years ago

Those limits are - by definition - set by the powerful and at their most effective on the powerless, because the ability to control what kinds of speech are allowed in a way that affects large numbers of people is in itself a huge form of power. If anyone claims otherwise, you should take a good look at their motivations.

foiboitoi|10 years ago

You don't make sense.

And empowerment > infantilization