Annoying attitudes to freedom of speech,

58% Normal
10 Comments

So I was watching the news on TV at 3am because that's what teenagers do these days, and I saw these three news headlines back-to-back:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/uk-russia-pussyriot-idUKBRE87F0Y420120816

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19286654

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19291516

If you can't be bothered to read, the stories can be summed up as:

1) Russian band arrested for speaking out against Putin.

2) South African miners shot and killed by police for going on strike.

3) Schools in Chile raided by police during peaceful protest.

Seeing these stories made me think: "That's what being denied freedom of speech really means. It means being arrested or killed for speaking out against something clearly wrong." What freedom of speech doesn't mean is not being allowed to preach hate, racism, homophobia, sexism, political bigotry and lies.

Is it normal to be pissed when people hide behind the thin veil of "you're violating my freedom of speech" when there are people actually being killed all around the world for what they believe in? Those are the real people being denied freedom of speech, not some nutcase who thinks deporting immigrants (or something like that) is the way to solve the country's problems. That person deserves to have someone shut them up. Is it normal to think how I do about the idiots who claim their freedom of speech is being violated when it isn't?

PS: I know, late-at-night ranting. I don't blame you if you don't get this through moderation, it just got me angry and I needed to say it.

Voting Results
58% Normal
Based on 12 votes (7 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 10 )
  • Couman
    11 years ago

    So here's the key question. Do you believe it is a violation of freedom of speech when people who "preach hate, racism, homophobia, sexism, political bigotry and lies" are arrested?

    If yes, then I can see where you're coming from. Being told "shut up you cretin, we don't like that kind of talk here" is not a violation of freedom of speech, but an example of it.

    If no, then it sounds an awful lot like you're saying "freedom of speech should only be protected when I agree with it", which needless to say makes you hypocrite.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Well, hate and lies and bigotry are objective. It doesn't matter if I agree with their sentiment or not, lies are lies and hate is hate and people shouldn't be allowed to say those things. Whether I agree with them is not relevant.

      For example, I personally lean to the political left. I dislike my country's Conservatives. But if someone called for them all to be arrested for subscribing to Conservatism, I would feel we should protect the Conservatives despite the fact that I find their thoughts objectionable. They have a right to that belief and that right should be protected.

      If someone instead called for the censorship of anyone who believed in white superiority, I would agree the superioritists should be censored. We shouldn't be allowing people to spread dangerous beliefs. They don't have a right to hold a belief which is dangerous to some people.

      So, to answer you: I think freedom of speech should be protected so long as the speech is not dangerous.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Couman
        11 years ago

        Right, hypocrite then.

        In every single one of your examples, the government would have said the people they arrested were spreading dangerous beliefs and/or hate.

        If you don't believe people have a right voice "dangerous" beliefs you don't actually believe in freedom of speech. (As an aside, you apparently don't believe in freedom of thought either, which is all kinds of creepy.)

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          "Government says" does not mean "truth" (usually it means the opposite). I understand that what constitutes "dangerous beliefs" is subjective and governments can interpret it in a manipulative way, but you can safeguard against that and sometimes I think it's obvious when someone wants to hurt someone. Contrary to popular belief, you can hurt someone with speech.

          For example, I don't believe anyone should have the freedom to run through the streets shouting "death to blacks!". Those words have the power to indirectly hurt people, it's called inciting racial hatred. In my country, inciting racial hatred is against the law. I don't think freedom of speech ought to extend to words that can incite people to physically hurt each other, it's obvious that the intention of those words is to incite someone else to commit a violent act.

          I believe in freedom of speech, but I don't think it should be boundless. If I went outside your door and posted you a letter threatening to systematically murder your family, would that be covered by my freedom of speech? Would I be morally clean? No, I wouldn't, because those words are threats; they are harmful words. I know it's an extreme example, but it's shows how freedom of speech shouldn't be entirely limitless.

          And I believe in freedom of thought but not universal freedom to put thought into action.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          -1
          -1
            -
          • Couman
            11 years ago

            > "Government says" does not mean "truth" (usually it means the opposite).

            That's exactly the point. Since the government can't be trusted, they should not be allowed such excuses in the first place.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              By that logic, why should the government be allowed to arrest anyone for anything? If the police can't be trusted to make decisions in the best interest of the public, why should they even have the power to arrest for anything at all?

              And: why should police not be allowed to arrest someone for what they say but allowed to arrest someone for how they act?

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • thinkingaboutit
    11 years ago

    Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere

    you think something is unjust. the person sitting next to you thinks it is just. who is right? no one. one of you is bound to shed blood.

    welcome to the world :)

    sucks, doesn't it?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • dappled
    11 years ago

    Yes, I completely understand your annoyance. Freedom of speech does mean different things to different people, though. In particular, I think it varies with your outlook. Some people do live inside their own bubble (legitimately) and see their own rights and privileges as more important than anyone else who also just happened to be born on this planet, the same as they were. Most of us are guilty of this to some degree.

    Then there are some people (like me, and I suspect you) who see quite plainly an inherent unfairness and are annoyed by it. Good! I hope you keep on being annoyed by it. I hope I do too. I can't imagine a world where nobody at all cares.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • NeuroNeptunian
    11 years ago

    It's normal to be angered about the way that people are in first world countries when others tell them to shut up and they flaunt their "Freedum uff speech herp derp" crap like some idiotic flag. However, what those derpickles don't realize is that freedom of speech also covers everyone else's right to freely tell them to shove a cork in it.

    It does work both ways, and contrary to what many derp-de-herps believe, being told to shove it is not a violation of one's first amendment, nor is being kicked off private property or having your comments on Facebook deleted by whoever runs the page. So herp that! >=D

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0