(Free Speech Question) Do you believe some people really need to be shut up?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lost_Wanderer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lost_Wanderer

Guest
This is with regards to the concept of free speech/expression. From my understanding, free speech is a right to express any ideas or opinions despite how deviant they may be and that any form of restricting such a right is a definite NO-NO. I also believe however, that it is the most highly abused right today when the free speech card is often played to justify the dissemination of lies, libel, slander and black propaganda.

What do you think could be a solution to this abuse of free speech?

Do you think that there are some exceptional people (regardless of how few they may possibly be) who deserve to have this right taken from them? If yes, why? If no, by what standards should we judge these people against?

Just a few thoughts in my head after seeing so many people play the Free Speech card. :o
 
I think that however radically anyone’s opinions or platforms may differ from others, we are still and always required to speak with gospel charity. In respecting others while disagreeing even profoundly from them, people should continue to do as Jesus taught, “love others as yourself.”

Where anyone does not respect others in this way, perhaps there is a call to silence them if they disseminate lies, libel, or slander, anything that causes harm to others. However it is dangerous territory. Consider the person who has recently been given 2 years of jail for persuading a woman not to have an abortion. Her freedom of speech has landed her in prison, because in the court’s eyes and in the opinion of many in our society, her words and action was considered evil and a transgression upon another’s rights.

I think it would be difficult to discern and to police decisions to silence anyone.
 
As Trishie said, if it’s something untrue or harmful to others, there may be an obligation to correct others. If it is contrary to Christ’s teachings, there would be an obligation to respectfully explain things. But for those who diarreah of the mouth citing their right to free speech, they may have to be tolerated. It gets even trickier with the who will police it question. As we’ve seen over the years, more and more people are starting to police God out of school, out of the pledge of allegiance, Merry Christmas is becoming Happy Holidays, etc.
 
And what about Fred Phelps and his clan? They believe in freedom of speech. At least, for themselves. Anyone who openly disagrees is in for a rough time.

We forget that with each and every right there comes responsibility. We can speak freely, but we should be careful so that we don’t infringe on the rights of others.
 
Christy_Beth said:
And what about Fred Phelps and his clan? They believe in freedom of speech. At least, for themselves. Anyone who openly disagrees is in for a rough time.

We forget that with each and every right there comes responsibility. We can speak freely, but we should be careful so that we don’t infringe on the rights of others.
Click to expand...
I think the best way to combat the Fred Phelps of the world is to just let them keep talking. Some of the people whom I find most annoying never remember the old maxim: “It is better to be quiet and be perceived a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”.
 
I think the general solution to the pursuit of idealistic standards such as free-speech is to take them all in a context of risk-reward to society at large by recognizing that individual rights can not scale to a level that impose on any arbitrary group through an unwelcome imposition of power and influence. Spamming the senses with a cacophony of useless and irrelevant information only operates to overwhelm the senses and undermine the quality of life for all. Bandwidth has its limits and the world could not suffer to permit 6 billion people to simultaneously force their independent ideas and idle speech on others without making the planet a zoo.

In other words it’s rather self defeating to promote a naive idealism just “for the sake of idealism” if that pursuit does not scale with equal consideration to all and leads to social degradation or self-destruction of the very environment that permits us to even conceptualize these presumably “good” ideals.

With respect to the specific idealism at hand we need to note that a speech imposes a burden of uni-directional communication in 3 kinds of relationships: one to one (possibly self), one to many, and one to few. We note immediately here that we can suffer the idealism by permitting anyone free-speech with himself but by denying the public soapbox to “the many”. The compromise is to define a subclass “few” who subscribe to the one through free election - not by imposition through force of expression.

Thus, to the people who want to think they have more rights than others and who can shout the loudest to disrupt the peace or to those who know how to intimidate through more expressive communicative means (superior talent - so much for “all created equal”) I say: “you are entitled to free speech but not the public soap box”. I also say “please, if you must scream, put a bucket over your head and scream there - but not in my ear.”

Bottom line:
If its an emergency - yes please scream loudly. But if you cry wolf you go to jail. But if its just a special interest need or a desire for social interaction then respect my rights to proceed in peace. Say the minimum necessary to convey the card-catalog category of what it is you are trying to sell me then please shut up and leave me in peace if I don’t want to buy nor listen to your sales pitch.

James
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
This is with regards to the concept of free speech/expression. From my understanding, free speech is a right to express any ideas or opinions despite how deviant they may be and that any form of restricting such a right is a definite NO-NO. I also believe however, that it is the most highly abused right today when the free speech card is often played to justify the dissemination of lies, libel, slander and black propaganda.

What do you think could be a solution to this abuse of free speech?

Do you think that there are some exceptional people (regardless of how few they may possibly be) who deserve to have this right taken from them? If yes, why? If no, by what standards should we judge these people against?

Just a few thoughts in my head after seeing so many people play the Free Speech card. :o
Click to expand...
Freedom of speech is the Right to tell the Truth, not the right to lie. Liars need to be shut up.

Freedom of speech is for the proclaiming of the Catholic Church as the One and only True Church. Any heretics need to be shut up.

Freedom of speech is so that we can speak in whatever language we want. People who say we must speak in only English need to shut up.

Unfortuanatly in America they take freedom of speech to mean that you are supposed to lie, attach the Church and force English on everyone.
 
Claudius said:
Freedom of speech is for the proclaiming of the Catholic Church as the One and only True Church. Any heretics need to be shut up.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. Your god is not real, and you are the one who needs to be shut up. 😛
 
I disagree with the premise of your thread. The right of free speech is not and never has been unconditional. A right is impinged at the point of intersection with another right at which point a legislative or judicial decision has to define the interaction of rights.

The Supreme Court, for example, famously ruled that the free speech provision does not protect yelling fire in a crowded theater. Likewise libel and slander laws, harassment laws and disorderly conduct laws where speech is likely to cause alarm, terroristic threatening laws, inciting to riot laws are on the book everywhere and are constituional restrictions on free speech. The court has also shown some willingness to restrict pornography based on community standards. What the Court will not enforce are restrictions on free speech based on whose ox is being gored.

I would take issue with the court’s position on pornography as protected speech, and with recent restrictions on campaigning as unprotected speech. Nonetheless, the answer is to elect good legislators who will make proper supreme court appointments.
 
Biggie said:
I disagree with the premise of your thread. The right of free speech is not and never has been unconditional. A right is impinged at the point of intersection with another right at which point a legislative or judicial decision has to define the interaction of rights.

The Supreme Court, for example, famously ruled that the free speech provision does not protect yelling fire in a crowded theater. Likewise libel and slander laws, harassment laws and disorderly conduct laws where speech is likely to cause alarm, terroristic threatening laws, inciting to riot laws are on the book everywhere and are constituional restrictions on free speech. The court has also shown some willingness to restrict pornography based on community standards. What the Court will not enforce are restrictions on free speech based on whose ox is being gored.

I would take issue with the court’s position on pornography as protected speech, and with recent restrictions on campaigning as unprotected speech. Nonetheless, the answer is to elect good legislators who will make proper supreme court appointments.
Click to expand...
Okay, but what about the internet? It’s also been used to spread all kinds of information whether that information be full of facts or fables.Some people have also used to say the most offensive things. Do you think it also applies there?
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
Okay, but what about the internet? It’s also been used to spread all kinds of information whether that information be full of facts or fables.Some people have also used to say the most offensive things. Do you think it also applies there?
Click to expand...
:eek: There’s all kind of potential problems with the internet aren’t there, and I think they’re only beginning to get into it.

My own preference is to leave it as it is, and use existing libel laws, etc. to attempt some protections because once government gets involved in it it will kill it. But the effects false and inflammatory information have on events will probably force their hand. Who can tell what’s real and authoritative on it any longer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top