Freedom of speech and offending people

Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum

Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Wayfarer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
25
Location
Italy
I'd be interested in starting a discussion about this topic.

More in detail, what's the limit between the two? Some people may be in favour of complete freedom of speech, without bothering if they offend anyone, other might take the opposite stance, and avoid saying certain things altogether in some context, other may take the middle ground(s).

However I'm afraid caring too much about what we say, in the most cases, causes total censure, as people would rather conform to the conservative approach, than speak openly for fear of offending anyone (or fear of punishment or discrimination).
This is also related to what I see very often: outwardly some people may seem completely ok and open minded, but when you get to know some better, you realize they are the most arrogant and racist/xenophobic ones. This is an example.

Is total freedom of speech, with no consequences, the answer? There are some serious legal problems, that merit examination such as, to mention a few: libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, incitement, fighting words, divulging of classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

I would like also to link this article: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/war-against-free-speech-campus
Here are also other interesting opinions with respect to what constitutes hate speech and where the limit should lie: http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/06/04/where-should-the-limits-to-freedom-of-speech-be-set/

It is clear, at least for me, there exists no real polarized solution. It seems evident, we ought to make some concessions, although to what degree is difficult to say. Bringing back the debate more in general, even assuming one has no desire to offend someone, it may still happen, and one may not feel free to express their opinion, for fear of aggressive retaliation. Moreover, words can cause emotional damage. This is especially true in the case of young kids, for example. Anyway, I feel I'm again going off topic...

Let me try to put the question in simpler terms. To what degree do you think it's acceptable to limit anyone's freedom of speech?

Other questions worthy of note: can an opinion itself be intrinsically offensive? and in case it is, is it right to censor it? Who should be in charge of defining these limits? In case such limits are not respected, what should be done?
 
Im too tired to reply atm and im sure people wouldn't be interested in my opinion anyways but heres a video that's nice.

[youtube]WDLIR71Pe0A[/youtube]
 
Are we talking about a person talking offense at ANYTHING or just things like derogatory remarks and insults and things that like?

If we're talking anything any person might consider taking offense to, that's more on the person taking offense and not the person who said something "offensive" to them. A lot of people are way too **** sensitive and need to...well, toughen up, I suppose. Every person can't be responsible for whether or not someone will take something completely innocent as offensive.

However, the things that are derogatory, insulting or whatever, yeah, I suppose people should be more tactful, but, that's not something that is likely to be remedied, because there are ******** out there that don't care .
 
If someone's offended, that's their issue. They decided to become offended. And it's probably mainly because that's how society is conditioning people today. To be offended over every little thing that's said, because how dare anyone not agree... It's so ridiculous now. It's not everyone else's issue that someone was offended. It's theirs. They should realize that it's their own choice to either be upset or to not let something bother them. We do have that choice, but today's society would have us all believe that we must get frazzled and upset when someone doesn't agree with us.
 
Interesting topic and one that could in itself cause arguments because there are some people who are constantly looking for things to be offended about. I don't know about the rest of the world but here in the UK you daren't even talk about certain topics - race, colour, sexual preference etc etc etc - because you know that there will be someone, somewhere who will take offence and if they are of a mind take things further and prosecute. I know I personally tread very carefully when discussing certain topics in case I upset someone because that's how the thought police want us to be - tippy toeing around and not saying what we think and feel about things. Big Brother Rules OK !

Imo it makes things worse not better because then resentment builds about our inabillity to have our own opinions and (God Forbid) express them. Of course we need to respect that others are different but we also need to be able to express our views without fear of being labelled 'Ist'
 
Other questions worthy of note: can an opinion itself be intrinsically offensive? and in case it is, is it right to censor it?

Just because something qualifies as an opinion doesn't mean it's automatically inoffensive or devoid of bigotry. Despite that, I disagree with attempts to censor opinions. I do, however, think you should expect the possibility of criticism or disagreement. I find people are way too quick to cry about censorship as soon as they get a whiff of negative feedback.

Also, I don't think people choose to be offended, annoyed, etc. These claims of people wanting to be offended are *often* used as excuses to justify bad behavior. Emotions just arrive. You can only choose how to express or handle them.
 
Personally, I always figured the old rules were the best; "your freedom ends where someone else's begins". In the context of Freedom of speech, accidentally insulting someone happens. What should be looked at is intention rather than the action itself.
For example, if I say "Dammit, kid, someday someone's going to knock your teeth out!", even though I'm using violent imagery, it was NOT a threat of violence to someone. Yet, in essence, it is a threat of violence.
I believe more careful use of context should be applied. If it's intentionally designed to irk someone unjustly, I don't see the point in it. In humor, for example, slurs and expletitives, used in context and in good humorous taste, can lead to great material. An example would be George Carlin. He said some VERY big enormities in his career. In context however, he was never racist, or violent, or agressive towards anyone and is remembered as a legendary comic.
I'm all against censoring. Save in some cases, where it is CLEARLY incitation to hate.
If not, I'd teach people the lost skill of learning to live with being offended once in a while...
 
The problem is some groups of people will actively and purposefully take things out of context and feign strategic outrage to go after specific people and ideas to try to discredit them.

If it convenient to be offended people will act offended. If it means getting your enemy to do what you want. Many people will play the outrage card if it means they get more power out of it.

All you have to do is look at the news. Strategic outrage is the name of the game. If you don't think it actually happens then you aren't paying attention. The left is constantly tearing itself apart in attempt to try to see who can be the most offended/virtuous.

Carlin was mentioned as an example. He gets a comedian pass. But not all attempts at comedy are taken equally. I don't like Bill Maher much but just look at what's happened to him recently for his attempt at making a joke. It is strategic. If they don't like you, you don't get a pass.

I still remember people getting upset over something as innocent and stupid as a scientist's shirt during the whole Rosetta mission. A determined victim will always find SOMETHING to get offended by.
 
I'm not that concerned about some nebulous notions about what's polite and not polite to say in mixed company.
As Christopher Hitchens said-
"Those who are determined to be 'offended' will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics and it is degrading to make the attempt."

I'm more concerned about The Man (meaning government authorities) deciding what is ok and not ok to say in public and in print and digital media. Government censorship - even of views that I despise - is much more insidious and is simply unacceptable.
 
Agree with Kamya and Sofia, it's often strategic outrage; and invoking violent oppression as a way to restrict other's airing their (sometimes odious and hateful) opinions. Some elements on the progressive left do seem to be arguing for the expansion of hate speech laws, which would prevent the alt-right and various white supremacist groups from broadcasting their ideas, but it applies across the board.
 
SofiasMami said:
I'm not that concerned about some nebulous notions about what's polite and not polite to say in mixed company.
As Christopher Hitchens said-
"Those who are determined to be 'offended' will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics and it is degrading to make the attempt."

I'm more concerned about The Man (meaning government authorities) deciding what is ok and not ok to say in public and in print and digital media. Government censorship - even of views that I despise - is much more insidious and is simply unacceptable.

See, it might be stupid, but I often time draw comparisons with the world of today and one of my favorite movies, which wasn't very well received (it wasn't very good lol) but part of a classic series; Escape from L.A, starring Kurt Russell as Snake Plissken.
Like many of Carpenter's films, it's a social criticism, where Snake represents the "everyday man" in a society that's not quite right. Yet certain things in there are closely parellelling some of the things happening in society today. "No red meat", while not actually the case, there's an intense battle, not just in the US, to ban junk food from everywhere, as well as very powerful groups pushing for veganism and the like. While I have nothing against it at all, I still want to retain the right to eat a burger and some days I wonder if it will not eventually disappear. One of the girls in that movies states "I was a Muslim in South Dakota before it became illegal", which while again not quite the same, represent a lot of ill feelings right now in the US when it comes to people's religions. The President in that movie is some kind of egotistical maniac who cares only about himself and is a bit of a religious nut. Which is not without it's parallels today, regardless of one's political stance.
So...I don't know. The more I see different things unfolding, the more I feel we are getting more censored, maybe not more censored, but "less free". Is it necessarily a bad thing? On some levels, probably, but on others, probably not, considering some people will do the most outrageous things and not care.

I believe some level of censorship is required, if it's an encouragement to crime, but if it's criticism, wether it be of politics, of religion, of anything else, it shouldn't be censored. I don't think "The Man" lacks intelligence, but I do believe we're losing "common sense". However that may be define nowadays lol.

Anyways, I see where you're going. I do tend to agree. But it's not as bad as what it could become if everyone starts bending over backwards towards everyone else...
 
ardour said:
Some elements on the progressive left do seem to be arguing for the expansion of hate speech laws, which would prevent the alt-right and various white supremacist groups from broadcasting their ideas, but it applies across the board.

Those laws are about shutting people up. If they're not endangering anyone's lives or committing any real crimes, they should have the right to say whatever the fresia they want - even if it's deemed hateful or bigoted. The left is screaming that no one but them have the right to say honeysuckle and advocating physical violence because someone follows an ideology they don't agree with - they're committing the crime that they're trying to prevent and no one seems to realize how backwards this is.
 
DarkSelene said:
ardour said:
Some elements on the progressive left do seem to be arguing for the expansion of hate speech laws,  which would prevent the alt-right and various white supremacist  groups from broadcasting their ideas, but it applies across the board.

Those laws are about shutting people up. If they're not endangering anyone's lives or committing any real crimes, they should have the right to say whatever the fresia they want - even if it's deemed hateful or bigoted. The left is screaming that no one but them have the right to say honeysuckle and advocating physical violence because someone follows an ideology they don't agree with - they're committing the crime that they're trying to prevent and no one seems to realize how backwards this is.

They are so concerned with imaginary "violent" right-wing speech they are physically assaulting people, the world is so bizarre.
 
During the crap that happened at Evergreen a few months ago student protesters were basically kidnapping faculty and holding them hostage. Professors were being told to hold classes off campus to be safe. All because a white professor showed up on "no whitey" day.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/25/evergreen-state-students-demand-professor-resign-f/

How does the university respond?

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion...ivided-country-our-campus-will-remain-united/

They responded by bending over and taking every inch.

Hopefully they lose their state funding from this.

People that are interested in controlling language and silencing opposing opinions are not fighting for equality, they are trying to completely reverse the scale. They will never be satisfied.

If most of your discussions with people of opposing views end up with you being offended, resorting to personal attacks, and labeling the other person as some kind of "-ist" then you probably aren't interested in any kind of rational discussion. You also most likely aren't fighting for real equality, and you might want to start blaming yourself for the shortcomings in life.
 
Like the teacher wrote on his email: Everyone has the right to get off campus for the day and celebrate whatever the fresia they want, but they can't throw people away based on their skin color and demand respect for it. That dean is the biggest cuck on the planet!

Should've called it segregation day, not diversity.
 
I am a precious snowflake and should be protected from offence at all costs, even the loss of freedom of speech for others.

*cough*
 
(and bleed_the_freak said:
I am a precious snowflake and should be protected from offence at all costs, even the loss of freedom of speech for others.

*cough*

the argument in a nutshell is "cetain types of   speech should be outlawwed because it re-enforces a culture of violence and discrimination against LGBT/minorities, etc."
 

Latest posts

Back
Top