Should speech be totally free or should their be some censorship?

[Holly3278]

Hey, everyone.This is an issue that has been bothering me lately. Should speech be totally free or should there be some censorship? I am not talking about speech that incites violence and riots or shouting fire in a movie theater. That is already illegal and I think most people would agree that it should stay that way. What I am talking about is hate speech such as what we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia recently. Most people would admit that this kind of speech makes a lot of people feel intimidated and it might even make the racism issue worse. Therefore, should it be censored and criminalized as hate speech as is done in Canada or should it remain protected speech?

Personally, I am torn on the issue. On the one hand, I would love it if hateful bigots such as white supremacists weren’t allowed to intimidate others with their hateful speech but on the other hand, I think that giving the government the power to censor certain kinds of speech as hateful is a slippery slope and could easily lead to violations of religious freedom for example. As an example, such laws could be used to prosecute priests who preach homilies against same-sex “marriage”.

So, what do you think?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Hey, everyone.This is an issue that has been bothering me lately. Should speech be totally free or should there be some censorship? I am not talking about speech that incites violence and riots or shouting fire in a movie theater. That is already illegal and I think most people would agree that it should stay that way. What I am talking about is hate speech such as what we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia recently. Most people would admit that this kind of speech makes a lot of people feel intimidated and it might even make the racism issue worse. Therefore, should it be censored and criminalized as hate speech as is done in Canada or should it remain protected speech?

Personally, I am torn on the issue. On the one hand, I would love it if hateful bigots such as white supremacists weren’t allowed to intimidate others with their hateful speech but on the other hand, I think that giving the government the power to censor certain kinds of speech as hateful is a slippery slope and could easily lead to violations of religious freedom for example. As an example, such laws could be used to prosecute priests who preach homilies against same-sex “marriage”.

So, what do you think?

We HAVE to defend free speech even if we don’t like it. I think this where people get confused—defending someone’s right to speak is not the same as agreeing with them.

The reason is that government regulates speech, those same laws will someday be used against you.

Also, it won’t stop with the bigots or the Nazis. They’ll just keep coming and coming.

Also, notice how the definition of bigot and Nazi, as Dave Rubin notes, has expanded to include pretty much anyone to the right of Bernie.

I promise you those laws would be used to hit priests for speaking out.

You note Canada as an example. In Canada, you could go to jail for speaking out against transgenderism (as in not using proper pronouns) or speaking out against so-called gay “marriage”.

Finally, as Stefan Molyneaux notes “the alternative to free speech is only violence”.

 

[Jestersage]

Hey, everyone.This is an issue that has been bothering me lately. Should speech be totally free or should there be some censorship? I am not talking about speech that incites violence and riots or shouting fire in a movie theater. That is already illegal and I think most people would agree that it should stay that way. What I am talking about is hate speech such as what we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia recently. Most people would admit that this kind of speech makes a lot of people feel intimidated and it might even make the racism issue worse. Therefore, should it be censored and criminalized as hate speech as is done in Canada or should it remain protected speech?

Personally, I am torn on the issue. On the one hand, I would love it if hateful bigots such as white supremacists weren’t allowed to intimidate others with their hateful speech but on the other hand, I think that giving the government the power to censor certain kinds of speech as hateful is a slippery slope and could easily lead to violations of religious freedom for example. As an example, such laws could be used to prosecute priests who preach homilies against same-sex “marriage”.

So, what do you think?

That’s up to you. Instead of asking, check all the place where free speech are not absolute (which is to say, rest of the World) There’s a reason why some people love Canada – even I have to accept that though it does limit what I can speak, it does have its benefit.

 

[Holly3278]

We HAVE to defend free speech even if we don’t like it. I think this where people get confused—defending someone’s right to speak is not the same as agreeing with them.

The reason is that government regulates speech, those same laws will someday be used against you.

Also, it won’t stop with the bigots or the Nazis. They’ll just keep coming and coming.

Also, notice how the definition of bigot and Nazi, as Dave Rubin notes, has expanded to include pretty much anyone to the right of Bernie.

I promise you those laws would be used to hit priests for speaking out.

You note Canada as an example. In Canada, you could go to jail for speaking out against transgenderism (as in not using proper pronouns) or speaking out against so-called gay “marriage”.

Finally, as Stefan Molyneaux notes “the alternative to free speech is only violence”.

Yes, you make a very good point. But what else can be done to stop the hateful speech that intimidates people such as what happened in Charlottesville? Is it really right that hate groups like that should be allowed to gather together and intimidate an entire group of people based on the color of their skin?

I guess you could say that I have a very strong hatred of racism. When I was growing up, a step parent of mine was very racist against blacks and he even once said that slavery should be brought back. I thought that was disgusting and so backward. I have been against racism ever since then. I am even more so now because my very own son is mixed race and the man I love is also mixed race so this is kind of a personal issue for me.

 

[RomanoAmerio]

“Free speech” is a modern, liberal creation, and it is not of God.

The Chosen People had strict laws against blasphemy, which sit uncomfortably with this notion.

Western Christendom gave the “free speech” of heretics and blasphemers short shrift and was better for it.

The problem is when restrictions on speech are grounded in man’s law (liberalism, political correctness, “LGBTQ agenda”, feminism) and not God’s law. Restrictions on speech should be based on the moral law and involve matters of grave sin - not trivialities such as the twaddle of “safe spaces” and “triggers”.

 

[pnewton]

The problem is when restrictions on speech are grounded in man’s law (liberalism, political correctness, “LGBTQ agenda”, feminism) and not God’s law. Restrictions on speech should be based on the moral law and involve matters of grave sin - not trivialities such as the twaddle of “safe spaces” and “triggers”.

The problem with this is that it only works as long as there is moral leadership. When there is immoral leadership then morality becomes criminal. We cannot have a law making immoral speech illegal without that same law being used one day to prevent the proclamation of the Gospel. This is why the Catholic Church has adapted to a pluralistic society.

 

[Georgia]

The old saying that sunlight is the best disinfectant is true. When we get to hear the things some people spout, those ideas have less and less traction. It’s harder to defend some beliefs if everyone knows exactly what they are.

 

[GEddie]

I think SuperLuigi said it best.

Really, unless speech is free, no other freedom is possible.

ICXC NIKA

 

[thistle]

You may not threaten to kill the President or even any government officials.
You may not incite anyone to violence or to commit any kind of crime.

Therefore there is no 100% freedom of speech.

 

[Crusaderbear]

The problem is always that those spewing hate do not think they are responsible for or must suffer the consequences of their speech. If people would think about the consequences, then discussion could ensue. As it is, people react with physical violence to stifle ideas they don’t like. People need to counter hate speech with logic, not rocks and 2x4’s

 

[Stephen_says]

Yes, you make a very good point. But what else can be done to stop the hateful speech that intimidates people such as what happened in Charlottesville? Is it really right that hate groups like that should be allowed to gather together and intimidate an entire group of people based on the color of their skin?

I have a question: Does speech intimidate people? Or rather is it people that choose to be intimidated by speech? Would it instead be better to completely ignore these idiots? I mean, not ignore their ideas, for their ideas are a cancer on this country, but ignore them while they are speaking?

I don’t know, just throwing it out there.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Holly3278;14852279]Yes, you make a very good point. But what else can be done to stop the hateful speech that intimidates people such as what happened in Charlottesville? Is it really right that hate groups like that should be allowed to gather together and intimidate an entire group of people based on the color of their skin?

First of all, one man’s hate group is another’s hero march. Second, yes, people have a right to march, protest in whatever capacity as long as they aren’t interfering in the free speech rights or property rights of others.

The quality of speech, unless we mean assault or child porn, is irrelevant. The best thing we can do is counter-protest these actions, expose them and skin the light on all that is going on.

In other words, win the argument.

I guess you could say that I have a very strong hatred of racism. When I was growing up, a step parent of mine was very racist against blacks and he even once said that slavery should be brought back. I thought that was disgusting and so backward. I have been against racism ever since then. I am even more so now because my very own son is mixed race and the man I love is also mixed race so this is kind of a personal issue for me.

People are going to say dumb things like your relative did. But the good news with that is the best disinfection for such bad ideas is sunlight----get them out into the open.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You may not threaten to kill the President or even any government officials.
You may not incite anyone to violence or to commit any kind of crime.

Therefore there is no 100% freedom of speech.

Those examples are assault and interfere with the Constitutional rights of others. Therein lies the difference.

 

[Vonsalza]

Hey, everyone.This is an issue that has been bothering me lately. Should speech be totally free or should there be some censorship?
…What I am talking about is hate speech such as what we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia recently.

The classification of “hate speech” bears with it the connotation of “thought crime”.

As such, I don’t think the term should exist legally. If you want to be a racist hate-monger, I think you should have the full freedom to express your views and I should have the freedom to counter-protest.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I have a question: Does speech intimidate people? Or rather is it people that choose to be intimidated by speech? Would it instead be better to completely ignore these idiots? I mean, not ignore their ideas, for their ideas are a cancer on this country, but ignore them while they are speaking?

I don’t know, just throwing it out there.

To each his own. Some people want to have a conversation. I will warn you thought that trying to talk to Antifa, third-wave feminists or post-modernists is darn near impossible. These will folks shout, block and possibly even get violent. This stuff is all over social media.

 

[phil19034]

Free speech must be defended, even for people who preach hate.

Reason: When people are banned from using free speech, they result to violence. Charlottesville is a perfect example: when people attempt to censor or suppress free speech, violence breaks out.

Also, when exceptions are given and bans are permitted, then abuse is allowed to happen. When there is a “hate speech” exception, then who gets to define “hate speech”? This though leads to places like what in happening in Canada where it is now against the law to call someone by in incorrect pronoun.

All our freedoms are based on Free Speech. If a freedom is being challenged (like religious liberty) then we are free to voice our concern and objection. If we believe something immoral is happening (like abortion) then we have the right to voice our concern and objection. But when free speech is limited because what is offensive, then over time, “hate speech” is expanded to shut down legitimate debate.

When groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis march, they don’t recruit people to their cause, all they do is remind the majority that hated still exists. But when their freedom to express their hateful ideas are suppressed, then that suppression can actually have the opposite affect.

Another great example from real life. Last night, on the FoxNews, it was discussed that Nancy Pelosi & Diane Feinstein has called for the National Parks Service in San Fran to cancel the Patriots Prayer rally coming to San Fran because she calls them White Supremacists. However, the organizer, Joey Gibson, responded to FoxNews that it’s ridiculous because he’s not white and only 1 speaker out of all the speakers they are going to have is white. According to the organizer, all but 1 speaker is “brown,” not white.

youtube.com/watch?v=BncFCSsV914
feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=2FE564F3-54EB-470A-9B60-CD048CEE1B8D

I’m 100% against White Supremacy and all racism. My wife is Jewish, my mom is Puerto Rican, my grandfather has profound Native American genes, and my nephew is black.

But if we change our principals to allow exceptions to free speech, those exceptions will only increase over time, allowing groups to ban free speech when it objects to the ruling party’s views.

This is fascism. Fascism is not a socially right winged movement. It can be on the left or the right.

In closing, when I was a kid, born in 1977 and grew up in the 1980s; we were taught “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” I was made fun of a lot for my mother being Puerto Rican, but sometimes I got mad. But I worked hard to remember that, and it has been a good thing.

We need to get back to teaching out children that. Today, far too many people allow words to cut them. And while words can cut, we need to teach out kids to BOTH (1) not allow words to hurt them and (2) not to be bigoted.

But don’t suppress free speech. If bigots want to publicly out themselves by marching, etc… let them expose themselves and allow the free market to punch them by watching them struggle to find a good paying job.

God bless.

 

[spedteacherita]

Hey, everyone.This is an issue that has been bothering me lately. Should speech be totally free or should there be some censorship? I am not talking about speech that incites violence and riots or shouting fire in a movie theater. That is already illegal and I think most people would agree that it should stay that way. What I am talking about is hate speech such as what we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia recently. Most people would admit that this kind of speech makes a lot of people feel intimidated and it might even make the racism issue worse. Therefore, should it be censored and criminalized as hate speech as is done in Canada or should it remain protected speech?

Personally, I am torn on the issue. On the one hand, I would love it if hateful bigots such as white supremacists weren’t allowed to intimidate others with their hateful speech but on the other hand, I think that giving the government the power to censor certain kinds of speech as hateful is a slippery slope and could easily lead to violations of religious freedom for example. As an example, such laws could be used to prosecute priests who preach homilies against same-sex “marriage”.

So, what do you think?

I, too, have been struggling with this recently - even before this tragedy occurred.

I think that the Nazi/white supremacist group that gathered in Charlottesville actually went overboard in their protest gathering. I wonder if their permit allowed them to carry lit tiki sticks and march yelling the awful things they did. What I have a problem with is equating nonviolent speech with a hate crime - am I committing a crime if I speak out against homosexual lifestyles based on my religious convictions? Is James White committing a hate crime if he teaches that he doesn’t agree with Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, King James onlyism, etc? Do Christians commit a hate crime if they speak out about the horrors of murdering unborn babies? Once we begin to censor one person or group because they offend another - well, that becomes a slippery slope and how do you stop it?

I think it comes down to reacting emotionally every time someone says something and instead take the time to understand why they think or understand that way and come up with intelligent debates to help them understand what you disagree with.

I’m a Christian who is a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I don’t agree with a lot of what James White says, some doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic church nor many other societal issues with which we struggle today. I spend a lot of time listening and learning about other religions, denominations and lifestyles and, when learning about them I feel I can be a better communicator not only about what I believe but what drives them in their beliefs. That’s why I come to CAF and continue to come. I have made friends and have learned a tremendous amount about many denominations.

We have to be very careful when we begin to censor others because it offends my beliefs and lifestyle because it may come back to bite us in the end.

Just my perspective.

God bless, all,

Rita

 

[TARRAT]

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it does it make a sound? Now if the media had not shown up for the “demonstration” at Charolettsville would anybody besides those present heard it? What they were saying was already being said in their own quarters. Mind you they had all legal rights to be there as did the media. But the media, just because they had the right, could have chose not to be there and give air to their speeches.

Don’t take this as support of the assembly but I think possibly the worse thing was bringing their issues to light.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

In any such discussion of “free speech,” remember that what is considered “speech” is a moving target. The courts have determined that flag burning is “speech.” The mayor of Baltimore some weeks ago said people need “freedom to destroy” when speaking of rioters. The direction of society seems to be that actions, specifically destructive ones, are protected “speech.” That’s quite a slippery slope.

 

[tawny]

We HAVE to defend free speech even if we don’t like it. I think this where people get confused—defending someone’s right to speak is not the same as agreeing with them.

The reason is that government regulates speech, those same laws will someday be used against you.

Also, it won’t stop with the bigots or the Nazis. They’ll just keep coming and coming.

Also, notice how the definition of bigot and Nazi, as Dave Rubin notes, has expanded to include pretty much anyone to the right of Bernie.

I promise you those laws would be used to hit priests for speaking out.

You note Canada as an example. In Canada, you could go to jail for speaking out against transgenderism (as in not using proper pronouns) or speaking out against so-called gay “marriage”.

Finally, as Stefan Molyneaux notes “the alternative to free speech is only violence”.