Free Speech vs. Security of Mind

[silverDistortioN]

well, i ended up looking at some quotes regarding freedom of speech today, and some of them reminded me of the old philosophical debate thread we had on the old forum... last i remember, i had taken a stance something along the lines that the world would be better off with an offensive sidewalk chalk drawing than without.

anyway, one quote struck me as particularly relevant. Zedie, at one point, was telling me he wanted to protect his kid from offensive imagery. therefore, the artist should never create the offensive work in public view. then i came across this:

"Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them." ~Mark Twain

i was thinking the same thing at the moment, to be honest, but i couldn't think of how to put it any more eloquently than "people are only offended because they choose to be." (actually, i guess that's not so bad... but it definitely wasn't debate-worthy.)

anyway... comments?

[Zeugma 440]

That's an interesting topic... One has to keep in mind that we are shocked because we have been educated to, and before all because society sets a certain number of standards that eventually makes out the 'normal' from the 'abnormal'.

A plain example would be primitive societies, where people are used to eating lice from time to time, and where all females are topless. Their society allows that because concepts like hygienics or sexual delinquency do not even exist. One could say that they don't know, nor fear the problems that could exist because of these attitudes, hence their behaviour.

To go back to your example, Silver, sex has always been something that our society would like to hide, at very first because people tend to prefer having sex privately.
As a consequence, anything too explicit is systematically banned from children's eyes, although having sex is completely natural.

Well, that's my explanation on the subject... it would be interesting to have more people dabating on that topic...

[TheDragonKnight]

ok first off hope im not reviveing a dead topic as this one is kinda old, but here goes anyway.

Are we talkign sex specificly? or simply anything our ubringing deems offensive?

aside from that i have to agree, that we as a people are only offended becasue we are taught to be, and indeed these teaching even entrenched in laws.

to your sidewalk example, regardless of what it is i think that specifly there it is bad. not putting an offensive drawing on the side walk should be a common courtesy thing, jsut as you would nto want anything forced upon you the artist should not force you to view his work. if he wishes to share he sould use a medium that can be easily viewable by the public but leaves them the option on weather or not to view it.

i agree in principal on the "if you dont like it dont look" statment. noone should tell you what you can and cannot see, that should be up to you. buti also think ther should be a limit on things. Use sex for the example, if you dont like porn, dont watch it. but if you do, go nuts. regardless you should not try to force your prefeence on anyone else (ie porn doesnt need to be outlawed, but it is certianly something that should be enjoyed in private)

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

Having sex is a normal way of expressing one's desire to have sex...

We do translate 'normal' out of 'abnormal' but to think of it, is the converse of this statement true? People like privacy because they obey the laws they understand and thus conflicts arise. Every society and religion in the world teaches its followers a decent way to live. This 'decency' is the set of laws that they must obey to stay in that society.

Every man does not obey rules. There are people that make their own rules while living in a society, they derive personal rules out of their interests and beliefs and physical desires are a part of these beliefs. He would let anyone he wishes and understands as a perfect part of his universe to do anything he believes to be good...thus SEX may not be ashameful publicly to him or the people following him.

Artists are born out of freedom of thought and limits and thus they do not see the things the way normal peolpe do. Thus, any thing they consider as freedom in the limits of human existence is art and not Out of This World.

My head kinda hurts right now...I'll come back to this thread when I feel good.

[silverDistortioN]

ok, firstly... would you consider it within an indivudual's rights to free speech to tell someone, in response to something that had angered them, to "fuck off!"?


for the sake of standardizing the debate, we'll use US laws:

slander is defined as...
"Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation."

anything obscene must meet the following tests:
* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.


it's not slander, no false statement.
it's not obscene, no prurient interest.

it is simply offensive.

so again, would it be considered within a person's rights to tell someone else to "fuck off!"?

[Marona]

freedom of speech exists in the internet really.but people can expect consequences.I mean the one with the consequences has the freedom right?

But racism and other things like that can go out of hand.Once taken the freedom of speech out of hand,it can cause tons of problems.

If the person has the freedom of speech,then the other person can have the freedom to respond to that.

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

so again, would it be considered within a person's rights to tell someone else to "fuck off!"?

Everything depends on certain situations. You cannot call that a 'right' of a person to tell someone to 'fuck off!'.

[silverDistortioN]

Everything depends on certain situations. You cannot call that a 'right' of a person to tell someone to 'fuck off!'.supposing the person saying it is duly provoked, would it be wrong to respond in such a way?

would it be within someone's rights to respond at all? i contend it is.
so... would it be within someone's rights to say "darn you!" instead of "fuck off!"?

[TheDragonKnight]

as i pointed out above i beleive in protecting someones rights to freedom of speec/expression. but again there are limits. the "fuck off" example is clearly beyond that. you have the right of free speech as long as you do not impinge somones rights while doing do.

"All things in moderation, including moderation" not sure where its from but it fits well.

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

Provoking someone to act in a way is a totally different case. Rights are not defined by your situations. The Freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want, whenever you think it is fine.

[silverDistortioN]

as i pointed out above i beleive in protecting someones rights to freedom of speec/expression. but again there are limits. the "fuck off" example is clearly beyond that. you have the right of free speech as long as you do not impinge somones rights while doing do.excellent point, TDK. so does this mean to say that you think the right not to hear someone say "fuck" outweighs one's right to say "fuck off!"? i'm guessing yes.

so where do you personally draw the line?

furthermore:
Rights are not defined by your situations. The Freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want, whenever you think it is fine.tell me i'm intepreting this wrong, but those two statements seem to contradict each other. free speech, in the US, is considered a right. (otherwise it would not be listed under the bill of *rights*.) but of course, this does not include slander or libel or obscenity.

and one last thing:
just for the sake of clarity, i want to remind everyone that a right refers to the legality of an action, not social acceptability.

[TheDragonKnight]

well silver as in all things you have to apply some common sence, id say if what your doing is genraly accepted by scioity as being rude or offensive then your've probably gone to far with your "freedom of speech"

however circumstance obviously apply. in a strip join commenting on a womans boobs even crudly, it acceptable but doing so in almost anyother location is not. and of course anything you do in the privacy of your own hope is nobdoys buisness but yours, scream what ever the hell you want at your TV :D

the Question is how far can you take your freedom of speech, well the only easy answer is just far enough. The american constution protects your right to be an idiot if you so please, however it doesnt say we have to put up with it!

im in favor of fair's fair. if you want to excercise your right to free speech to the point of idiocy, ill excersize my right to tell you i think your a fucking moron.

[silverDistortioN]

id say if what your doing is genraly accepted by scioity as being rude or offensive then your've probably gone to far with your "freedom of speech"

...

im in favor of fair's fair. if you want to excercise your right to free speech to the point of idiocy, ill excersize my right to tell you i think your a fucking moron.are you taking the position that offensive speech should not be protected? because that last paragraph seems to suggest otherwise... >.>

[TheDragonKnight]

Well i suppose im suppourting a bit of a double standard there, no i dont think offensive speech should be protected. just what exactly offensive speech is is another topic entirely. HOWEVER im a rather upfront guy. if your excersizing your right and i think yove gone to far, ill let you know in no uncertian terms :D

[silverDistortioN]

Well i suppose im suppourting a bit of a double standard there, no i dont think offensive speech should be protected. just what exactly offensive speech is is another topic entirely.no, no... you got the right topic. i made it, after all. i should know.

but if you don't think offensive speech should be protected, where do you draw the line? is it the impact made on the supposed victim? or is there some concrete standard you want to apply?

[TheDragonKnight]

Hmm well, Legaly i suppose there'd be some mandated standard, likely outlined in a countries public decency laws, however its alos a presonal standard thing. i mean your grandparents more than likely find swearing even mildly fairly offensive, but if you stand ina high scholl lunchroom id bet youd hear swearing every third word, and its a good bet most of those kids dont mind.

Reality is relative, this sort of ties in with the opinion thread, your not going to attempt to charge somone with violating your rights with offencive speech unless you find the speech in question offensive, on the same token even if the speech IS legaly offensive your not going to bring legal action to bear if you dont personly find it offensive, why should you you dont care.

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

tell me i'm intepreting this wrong, but those two statements seem to contradict each other. free speech, in the US, is considered a right. (otherwise it would not be listed under the bill of *rights*.) but of course, this does not include slander or libel or obscenity.

I messed up :P. I forgot to "!not" the next statement. :)

[Lord Draud]

i support freedom in the truest form do what you want but if to many get pissed at you they have the freedom to do what hey want to you, mind you i am more then a bit nuts!

[silverDistortioN]

Hmm well, Legaly i suppose there'd be some mandated standardfor the third time, TDK... where do you draw the line? what would these "mandated standards" be?

[TheDragonKnight]

Ahh sorry id missed that you wanted my presonal opinion. hmm well thats a bit harder. well personaly ive got a pretty thick skin, (its what i get for having spent years in grouphomes i suppose) its pretty hard to offend me using just words.

i think thers a limit to what can in good taste be spoken, but most things dont presonally offend me.

hmm thats a hard one, i mean swearing doessnt typicaly offend me, but there are definately palces i think it shoudlnt be used (church, would be an obvious one).

i suppose i find it offensive that someone would be ingnorant enough to cross the line like that. does that count?