Freedom of Speech...should it be above everything?

"It's words."

Frank Zappa on Crossfire

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Yes

It seems to me that those who demand freedom of speech most are those who go out of their way to be nasty at someone else's expense. There is inevitably a victim when the right to freedom of speech at all costs is demanded.

(Assuming the legal concepts of false light, slander, defamation and libel etc are upheld)

YES:
Legislating against the potential acts of those who are unable to act in their own best interests would be impossible.

If we ever completely understand human psychology to the point that we completely grasp out motivations for our feelings, we will cease to have sincere, spontaneous feelings

Back to the burrow....

Easy Livin wrote: It seems to me that those who demand freedom of speech most are those who go out of their way to be nasty at someone else's expense.

This is an enormous and unhelpful generalisation. Are you seriously suggesting organisations like Amnesty International "go out of their way to be nasty at someone else's expense". I doubt it, but that's what your statement implies.

Easy Livin wrote: There is inevitably a victim when the right to freedom of speech at all costs is demanded.

Debatable. I'd say there are far more victims when freedom of expression is denied.

ExittheLemming wrote: Blacksword wrote: Free speech should not be above everything. Educating people on their responsibilities in a world where they are lucky enough to be permitted so much freeodm of expression, is more important. In the 'free world' (wherever that is, these days) we would all benefit from first establishing what our responsibilities are, before we start fretting about the 'right' to say whatever we like, at whatever cost. Although this is a laudable endeavour there exists unable/unwilling to be educated - and no system with any longevity was ever designed around the exceptions.

Fair enough, but does that mean we shouldn't even try?

Trouserpress wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Blacksword wrote: Free speech should not be above everything. Educating people on their responsibilities in a world where they are lucky enough to be permitted so much freeodm of expression, is more important. In the 'free world' (wherever that is, these days) we would all benefit from first establishing what our responsibilities are, before we start fretting about the 'right' to say whatever we like, at whatever cost. Although this is a laudable endeavour there exists unable/unwilling to be educated - and no system with any longevity was ever designed around the exceptions. Fair enough, but does that mean we shouldn't even try?

No of course not, we have a collective responsibility to attempt to teach people their own responsibilities. All I'm saying is that we cannot ban paint because of the graffiti.

ExittheLemming wrote:  All I'm saying is that we cannot ban paint because of the graffiti.

seventhsojourn wrote: Does a life ban seem excessive for sending one abusive email?   http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/News/Teen-is-banned-from-USA-over-Obama-hate-email.htm

Even threatening direct violence on an individual is a very tricky issue. My father's a policeman and this is constantly coming up- people say they are going to beat up or kill each other ALL THE TIME. The vast majority of the time it doesn't happen. The person was just venting or posturing. Should they really all be picked up and thrown in jail? Some would say yes because occassionally the person is sincere and it's better to be safe than sorry. Objectively this is probably the correct view but from a human point of view, this would begin to resemble a police state and would be hugely unpopular with the masses of people who did not have the intention or ability to make good their threats. The truth, like it or not, is that people would prefer that some person they never heard of gets beaten up/murdered than that they themselves go to jail or be fined every time they say something stupid.