Thread: Freedom of Speech

Here's a really controversial topic. What does "freedom of speech" mean to you? Should any subjects be prohibited a priori? Let's make a list of the subjects that no one should ever talk about and why.

#1. Never mention again how "historic" Obama's election is. We're either PC and don't recognize race or we recognize it for what it is. Equality does mean undifferentiation afterall.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

#1. Never mention again how "historic" Obama's election is. We're either PC and don't recognize race or we recognize it for what it is. Equality does mean undifferentiation afterall.

I thought that "equality" only meant "equality under the law". Obviously, people are not equal in any other way. In fact, Obama may not even be the US's first "black" president. One of the interesting things about his biography, Dreams from my Father, is that, for his entire life, Obama has obsessed about whether he is, in fact, "black enough".

I think it's historic that a black (well ok half black) man has won the US Presidency considering that in many areas of the US fifty years ago he wouldn't have been allowed to drink out of the same water fountain as a white (or less than half-black) man.

- incidentally that is also an example of what free speech means to me. I can be as PC or non PC as I like without fear of a soldier taking me away. To me it also means a private board such as SRP can speak freely about what it chooses to restrict in the way of others' free speech who use its board

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

To me it also means a private board such as SRP can speak freely about what it chooses to restrict in the way of free speech from others using its board

I agree with that. If a moderator asked me not to open a thread on a certain topic, I would comply. But, if a topic is allowed, then all the sides of the argument should be allowed. Don't you agree?

Originally Posted by Chimensch

I agree with that. If a moderator asked me not to open a thread on a certain topic, I would comply. But, if a topic is allowed, then all the sides of the argument should be allowed. Don't you agree?

absolutely

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Here's a really controversial topic. What does "freedom of speech" mean to you? Should any subjects be prohibited a priori? Let's make a list of the subjects that no one should ever talk about and why.

Lets start with a blanket: Any that cannot be discussed in a gentlemanly manner.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

I agree with that. If a moderator asked me not to open a thread on a certain topic, I would comply. But, if a topic is allowed, then all the sides of the argument should be allowed. Don't you agree?

No. (EDIT: All sides should be allowed, but they aren't necessarily) Only those sides which:

A) Meet the above criterion
B) (in the Conversation Forum specifically) meet with the approval of the original poster with respect to being on topic or not.

On this site, speech is governed and it is governed differently on different sections of this site even.

If that was not obvious before, I hope it is now.


-Rob

Found this on Wikipedia, i think it says it very well:

Based on John Stuart Mill's arguments, freedom of speech today is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:
The right to seek information and ideas;
the right to receive information and ideas;
the right to impart information and ideas.

Did you ever read the judgement passed on the man who wrote the DECSS application (which removed the encryption from DVD movies.) That took arguments about what constitutes free speech to a whole new level. It was like a thesis on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (*)

P.S. to sicboater. I don't believe there are any subjects that cannot be discussed in a gentlemanly manner. It's the attitude of the gentlemen that counts, not the subject matter.

P.P.S. (*) heres an example: http://www.2600.com/news/112801-files/universal.html

P.P.P.S. Isn't it interesting how in Germany it is illegal to suggest that the Holocaust was faked? Ask yourself this: wouldn't Hitler have been proud of such a law?

Originally Posted by Chimensch

But, if a topic is allowed, then all the sides of the argument should be allowed. Don't you agree?

Yep.
stupid character limit...