...But I'll defend to the death, your right to say it...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The problem is what about creating hostile work or learning environments? Wouldn't laws protecting speech infringe on others? Isn't dictating morality or group pressuring of morality a bit dangerous?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You apparently don't get the concept that....if you stand up for someone else's right to free speech...you are, in turn, standing up for your own.


I find it sad to believe anyone out there doesn't see this.


Are we to believe that you feel there should be laws designed to punish those who say or speak of unpopular things?


Get back to me when you've spend a few years under such a regime...and tell me how you feel about it then.

a reply to: ketsuko

THAT is the argument some of us have been attempting to make.

But there was no need to attempt to make that argument.

When have I ever come across as someone who sides with government or would advocate for government intrusion into our lives in such a manner?

Never.

I feel offended that you feel I would side with the government before the people.
So offended I'm gonna make a rant about it.

a reply to: ketsuko

You still are totally clueless as to the utter irony of your stating that Charlie's is a "dangerous opinion" ... aren't you?

Why do you keep trying so DESPERATELY to stuff words into his mouth?

RomeByFire is absolutely right ... this skrit is SURREAL!!!

a reply to: Kali74

Free expression should be protected until it infringes on the rights of others.

Then it's not free expression.

But then you get into the definition of "infringement".

Is being offended an infringement?

And things like.. Thank you Charlie what a debate here it's just too much but great amount of info everyone put it here

Judge you will be judged

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

And some of us have pointed out that that is a dangerous opinion.

So maybe you are just talking about some random guy on the street.

But maybe not.

What if the entity that decides it's had enough of their crap is the government. Would you stand by then? Do you think the government has the right to step in and attempt to murder its people because it doesn't like what they are saying?

THAT is the argument some of us have been attempting to make. That is where we talk about defending another person's right to speech, not on the level of two people on the street necessarily, but absolutely when it comes to having political power leveraged against them to silence them. You are the one who brought in the idea of permanent silence with your OP.

If you are not willing to fight for the freedom of all groups to speak, even those groups with which you disagree vehemently, then you are in danger of losing your own right to speak out.

Who said anything about "the government murdering people they don't agree with," because I'm having a hard time finding any claims from any posters saying that they believe "the government should murder those they don't agree with?"

I'm asking a question, not trying to be a dick. I sincerely am lost in regards to who said this, and where it was said at.

a reply to: nullafides

Are we to believe that you feel there should be laws designed to punish those who say or speak of unpopular things?

No, nullafides... Just no.

I didn't even allude to laws once in this thread.

Others have put those words in my mouth ad infinitum...
But I won't chew those words because I never said them.

originally posted by: Layaly
And things like.. Thank you Charlie what a debate here it's just too much but great amount of info everyone put it here

Judge you will be judged

I've thoroughly enjoyed it, Layaly.

It's been fun and intense, and everyone has had valid points to make.

Not always relevant, but valid nonetheless.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

That is the importance of freedom of speech and the importance of defending it. It isn't about defending specifically people who speak out in ways you don't like with opinions you find odious.

A lot of us dislike racists, bigots, and homophobes.

I dislike pornography myself, but I defend it in discussions where censorship is being discussed because I understand that if we censor it ... then the next time decency laws come up ... it might be something I do care about on the chopping block. I think porn is disgusting and that people ought not have anything to do with it. I personally do not, but I understand that I don't have to deal with it and can always freely choose to leave it on the darker sides of the Internet. No one forces it on me.

So it is with racists, bigots and homophobes. They can occupy their little corners, and if they speak freely, I know whom to avoid. And I know that what I say is what I say and no one is coming for me.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thanks for explaining.

I apologise wholeheartedly for being aggressive and argumentative earlier in the thread.


I got a little steamed and my hunger left me in a bad mood.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

I feel offended that you feel I would side with the government before the people.
So offended I'm gonna make a rant about it.

Well, that's just a dangerous opinion Charlie ... you should think differently than that ... here, let me crow about the important of free speech while I do my best to undermine yours.

a reply to: ketsuko

Would you die to insure that everyone, even pornographers and pedophiles and racists, had the right to freedom of speech?

I think that was the key question here.

The OP said, "No".

Then there are those of us that would die to ensure that everyone had the right to free expression, because (me at least) see it as a vital, crucial liberty that transcends constitutions.

It is an elemental, fundamental foundation to freedom.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So it is with racists, bigots and homophobes. They can occupy their little corners, and if they speak freely, I know whom to avoid. And I know that what I say is what I say and no one is coming for me.

And then you turn around and say something perfectly reasonable and logical.

You are a double-edged sword Ketsuko; if I've caused any discomfort to you in speaking my mind, I do apologize.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Is being offended an infringement?

Not at all, it's a challenge. Better that, than the whine fest crybaby party "some" like to indulge in. Even on this very thread.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Is being offended an infringement?

No it isn't, infringement only means government has attempted to or succeeded in revoking or restricting a right. But must you sit there and take it or are you allowed to use your own free speech to defend yourself or others? If this keeps happening over and over, let's stick with the professor student scenario, how can the class be productive? If the class isn't productive for whatever reason, be it silly or legit, why doesn't administration have the right to terminate employment?

To me it seems like adding a law that protects employment in matters of controversial/offensive speech would be like allowing proselytizing to a captive audience (which is not free speech btw). You have to sit through it because you are either physically restricted from leaving or you can't leave without consequence.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Aright, let's actually imagine a scenario where this might have some meaning.

A serial murderer has kidnapped you and an well-known White Supremacist that has been charged and found guilty of everything in the past from sodomizing underage girls to burning down churches.

The serial killer has a gun to your head and tells you that he is going to kill one of you.

He tells you that you can live by denouncing the other person as a gutless, pedophilic racist.

What do you do?

a reply to: Kali74

I don't think government is the only element that can infringe upon your rights.

If I don't allow you into my restaurant because of your color, then that is also an infringement.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DBCowboy

Aright, let's actually imagine a scenario where this might have some meaning.

A serial murderer has kidnapped you and an well-known White Supremacist that has been charged and found guilty of everything in the past from sodomizing underage girls to burning down churches.

The serial killer has a gun to your head and tells you that he is going to kill one of you.

He tells you that you can live by denouncing the other person as a gutless, pedophilic racist.

What do you do?

edit;

I take that back.

Just because you asked an inane question did not mean I needed to reply the same way.

I'm better than that.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You would have told him to shoot me? I'm not there, but that's an interesting Kobayashi Maru solution! LOL.

But, you are getting closer to what Charlie meant in the OP, I think ...

If we believe in freedom and equity under the laws for all citizens ... and we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that another person is utterly against freedom and equity for some citizens ... why would we act to enable them to persist in efforts to harm others?

EDIT: LOL ... why did you edit yourself? Just saying you think your'e better than me probably made you feel much better.

It wasn't an inane question but a real one, in lieu of whatever imaginary circumstances you imagine yourself "giving your life" for someone you disagree with.

A real scenario in place of an empty platitude.

Best.