It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freedom of speech, what does it mean to you.

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I find it amusing how so many people equate freedom of speech with the First Amendment. The First Amendment is merely a restraint on government. It has little to do with the actual meaning of a freedom of speech. I have also noticed in recent years this idea that freedom of speech should not be free from consequences. Who decides these consequences? If I say something that pisses off redheads can my life be destroyed just because they don't like what I say? I'm not talking about defamation or hate speech. I'm just talking about a derogatory comment against someone or a group of someones. Should person's life be ruined? Should their career be ruined? Should they be ruined publicly because they say something that you don't like? I guess that depends upon how you view free speech. If you think somebody should have their speech restricted or if they don't restrict their own speech they should be ruined publicly because of it I think that says a lot about what kind of person you are.


Precisely.

It is en vogue now for someone or a gaggle of bullying someone's to hound people out of their jobs for things they say and do on their own time.

And when you call them on it, their defense is "He/She was free to say it, but not free from the consequences."

The implicit message there is that there really isn't any freedom of speech or opinion if it deviates from what a big enough group of bullies would prefer to believe.


But if those consequences come from other people excercising their right to free speech how would you prevent this?




posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I find it amusing how so many people equate freedom of speech with the First Amendment. The First Amendment is merely a restraint on government. It has little to do with the actual meaning of a freedom of speech. I have also noticed in recent years this idea that freedom of speech should not be free from consequences. Who decides these consequences? If I say something that pisses off redheads can my life be destroyed just because they don't like what I say? I'm not talking about defamation or hate speech. I'm just talking about a derogatory comment against someone or a group of someones. Should person's life be ruined? Should their career be ruined? Should they be ruined publicly because they say something that you don't like? I guess that depends upon how you view free speech. If you think somebody should have their speech restricted or if they don't restrict their own speech they should be ruined publicly because of it I think that says a lot about what kind of person you are.




Precisely.

It is en vogue now for someone or a gaggle of bullying someone's to hound people out of their jobs for things they say and do on their own time.

And when you call them on it, their defense is "He/She was free to say it, but not free from the consequences."

The implicit message there is that there really isn't any freedom of speech or opinion if it deviates from what a big enough group of bullies would prefer to believe.


But if those consequences come from other people excercising their right to free speech how would you prevent this?


Freedom of speech isn't trying to get someone fired, or stalked or attacked physically.

It's become as though people have o hide their thoughts and feelings out of the very real fear of reprisals. This means those things that should be challenged are not.

It's easy, for instance, to be a racist in a vacuum, it's much harder when someone engages with others and has their beliefs challenged, the central tenets of their creed shown to be based on falsehoods.

That doesn't happen anymore, people don't talk. One person says something, the other person screams fascist and they both go off to try and build a consensus of their own friends to bully the other side.

For the ordinary working person in the street of any Western nation there isn't any difference between communism and Fascism. They are both totalitarian systems that crush the freedom of the individual for the "good" of the state.

Yet opposing one makes you a hero, while opposing the other makes you a Nazi in the eyes of some of these idiots.


The world is round and revolves around the Sun.....HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT! SEND HIM TO JAIL, PUT HIM IN THE STOCKS!


Even after all this time, some things are still the same.
edit on 19pSun, 05 Mar 2017 08:35:19 -060020172017-03-05T08:35:19-06:00kAmerica/Chicago31000000k by SprocketUK because: Truly amazing use of the quote button.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I find it amusing how so many people equate freedom of speech with the First Amendment. The First Amendment is merely a restraint on government. It has little to do with the actual meaning of a freedom of speech. I have also noticed in recent years this idea that freedom of speech should not be free from consequences. Who decides these consequences? If I say something that pisses off redheads can my life be destroyed just because they don't like what I say? I'm not talking about defamation or hate speech. I'm just talking about a derogatory comment against someone or a group of someones. Should person's life be ruined? Should their career be ruined? Should they be ruined publicly because they say something that you don't like? I guess that depends upon how you view free speech. If you think somebody should have their speech restricted or if they don't restrict their own speech they should be ruined publicly because of it I think that says a lot about what kind of person you are.




Precisely.

It is en vogue now for someone or a gaggle of bullying someone's to hound people out of their jobs for things they say and do on their own time.

And when you call them on it, their defense is "He/She was free to say it, but not free from the consequences."

The implicit message there is that there really isn't any freedom of speech or opinion if it deviates from what a big enough group of bullies would prefer to believe.


But if those consequences come from other people excercising their right to free speech how would you prevent this?


Freedom of speech isn't trying to get someone fired, or stalked or attacked physically.

It's become as though people have o hide their thoughts and feelings out of the very real fear of reprisals. This means those things that should be challenged are not.

It's easy, for instance, to be a racist in a vacuum, it's much harder when someone engages with others and has their beliefs challenged, the central tenets of their creed shown to be based on falsehoods.

That doesn't happen anymore, people don't talk. One person says something, the other person screams fascist and they both go off to try and build a consensus of their own friends to bully the other side.

For the ordinary working person in the street of any Western nation there isn't any difference between communism and Fascism. They are both totalitarian systems that crush the freedom of the individual for the "good" of the state.

Yet opposing one makes you a hero, while opposing the other makes you a Nazi in the eyes of some of these idiots.


The world is round and revolves around the Sun.....HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT! SEND HIM TO JAIL, PUT HIM IN THE STOCKS!


Even after all this time, some things are still the same.


Lack of civil discourse is certainly a major issue.


However if someone argues that they should be allowed to say whatever they want then they have to accept that others say whatever they want back.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I find it amusing how so many people equate freedom of speech with the First Amendment. The First Amendment is merely a restraint on government. It has little to do with the actual meaning of a freedom of speech. I have also noticed in recent years this idea that freedom of speech should not be free from consequences. Who decides these consequences? If I say something that pisses off redheads can my life be destroyed just because they don't like what I say? I'm not talking about defamation or hate speech. I'm just talking about a derogatory comment against someone or a group of someones. Should person's life be ruined? Should their career be ruined? Should they be ruined publicly because they say something that you don't like? I guess that depends upon how you view free speech. If you think somebody should have their speech restricted or if they don't restrict their own speech they should be ruined publicly because of it I think that says a lot about what kind of person you are.




Precisely.

It is en vogue now for someone or a gaggle of bullying someone's to hound people out of their jobs for things they say and do on their own time.

And when you call them on it, their defense is "He/She was free to say it, but not free from the consequences."

The implicit message there is that there really isn't any freedom of speech or opinion if it deviates from what a big enough group of bullies would prefer to believe.


But if those consequences come from other people excercising their right to free speech how would you prevent this?


Freedom of speech isn't trying to get someone fired, or stalked or attacked physically.

It's become as though people have o hide their thoughts and feelings out of the very real fear of reprisals. This means those things that should be challenged are not.

It's easy, for instance, to be a racist in a vacuum, it's much harder when someone engages with others and has their beliefs challenged, the central tenets of their creed shown to be based on falsehoods.

That doesn't happen anymore, people don't talk. One person says something, the other person screams fascist and they both go off to try and build a consensus of their own friends to bully the other side.

For the ordinary working person in the street of any Western nation there isn't any difference between communism and Fascism. They are both totalitarian systems that crush the freedom of the individual for the "good" of the state.

Yet opposing one makes you a hero, while opposing the other makes you a Nazi in the eyes of some of these idiots.


The world is round and revolves around the Sun.....HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT! SEND HIM TO JAIL, PUT HIM IN THE STOCKS!


Even after all this time, some things are still the same.


Lack of civil discourse is certainly a major issue.


However if someone argues that they should be allowed to say whatever they want then they have to accept that others say whatever they want back.



Absolutely, say what they want back, not go around trying to dox people on the net and try to intimidate them through threats to their job or family or some such. If someone says something you don't like, as a normal person you can choose to challenge their assertions or just tell them to get tae f... can't you? That is freedom of speech.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Doxing and threats of violence are certainly not free speech. However can we really say that calling for someone to lose their job should be banned? Have a think about the potential consequences of that.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Let us say I stand up and give a speech in support of the KKK, I speak calmly rationally and even a bit of eloquence supporting my view...

If people engage me in a rational argument minds can be changed in some cases...

If people scream fascist, or resort to violence, and do not attempt to engage me in a debate at all... people are not defending anything and in my opinion you are actually going against the values true liberals should hold.

Living in a free society means accepting that ideas you do not like will always be there, and you may have to deal with them on occasion in a civilized manner.




edit on 5-3-2017 by Irishhaf because: added a few words



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I find it amusing how so many people equate freedom of speech with the First Amendment. The First Amendment is merely a restraint on government. It has little to do with the actual meaning of a freedom of speech. I have also noticed in recent years this idea that freedom of speech should not be free from consequences. Who decides these consequences? If I say something that pisses off redheads can my life be destroyed just because they don't like what I say? I'm not talking about defamation or hate speech. I'm just talking about a derogatory comment against someone or a group of someones. Should person's life be ruined? Should their career be ruined? Should they be ruined publicly because they say something that you don't like? I guess that depends upon how you view free speech. If you think somebody should have their speech restricted or if they don't restrict their own speech they should be ruined publicly because of it I think that says a lot about what kind of person you are.


Precisely.

It is en vogue now for someone or a gaggle of bullying someone's to hound people out of their jobs for things they say and do on their own time.

And when you call them on it, their defense is "He/She was free to say it, but not free from the consequences."

The implicit message there is that there really isn't any freedom of speech or opinion if it deviates from what a big enough group of bullies would prefer to believe.


But if those consequences come from other people excercising their right to free speech how would you prevent this?


So if I were to say something here that someone disagrees with and they decide they think that comment makes me any of the fashionable ists or isms of the day. So they decide that the only thing to do is to chase down who I actually am and then take those comments to my employer and then further threaten my employer with legal action or a campaign to tell all the people he or she does does business with that she or he employs whatever that ist or ism is and therefore must condone or agree with that ist or ism making him or her an ist or ism him or herself.

Further, there is nothing that says I even get a chance to defend myself or that the accusation made against me is even an accurate representation. Furthermore, that one person could be so angry or spiteful that he or she creates a campaign that pulls in entire advocacy groups to pressure my employer.

So, talk to me again about my right to free speech.

If I can lose everything because of remarks taken out of context without the chance of defending myself because a mob decides they would like to ruin my life for the crime of disagreeing with them, then they can and will. There is no free speech. There is no agree to disgree and respecting that people hold differing opinions on things anymore.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SprocketUK

Doxing and threats of violence are certainly not free speech. However can we really say that calling for someone to lose their job should be banned? Have a think about the potential consequences of that.


Why not? Trying to get someone sacked is actually an extremely violent act. You are threatening someone's lively hood, their home, potentially their relationship with their spouse and causing real harm to any children....

Is that level of threat appropriate for someone saying something you don't like? Hell, getting a beating in the street would be less harmful wouldn't it?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SprocketUK

Doxing and threats of violence are certainly not free speech. However can we really say that calling for someone to lose their job should be banned? Have a think about the potential consequences of that.


So what if a person works somewhere and does all the things at their job that is appropriate to that job and they happen to be perfectly professional in all ways?

Does it really matter then even if they are a closet ist or ism in actuality?

Does being an ist or ism somehow impair a person's ability to also be professional, and if the only way anyone knows about their supposed ist or ism is if they make a remark on their own time and in private or a forum where it should have no impact on their job because there is nothing linking the two except the fact of the person him or herself ... DOES IT MATTER?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I find it amusing how so many people equate freedom of speech with the First Amendment. The First Amendment is merely a restraint on government. It has little to do with the actual meaning of a freedom of speech. I have also noticed in recent years this idea that freedom of speech should not be free from consequences. Who decides these consequences? If I say something that pisses off redheads can my life be destroyed just because they don't like what I say? I'm not talking about defamation or hate speech. I'm just talking about a derogatory comment against someone or a group of someones. Should person's life be ruined? Should their career be ruined? Should they be ruined publicly because they say something that you don't like? I guess that depends upon how you view free speech. If you think somebody should have their speech restricted or if they don't restrict their own speech they should be ruined publicly because of it I think that says a lot about what kind of person you are.


Precisely.

It is en vogue now for someone or a gaggle of bullying someone's to hound people out of their jobs for things they say and do on their own time.

And when you call them on it, their defense is "He/She was free to say it, but not free from the consequences."

The implicit message there is that there really isn't any freedom of speech or opinion if it deviates from what a big enough group of bullies would prefer to believe.


But if those consequences come from other people excercising their right to free speech how would you prevent this?


So if I were to say something here that someone disagrees with and they decide they think that comment makes me any of the fashionable ists or isms of the day. So they decide that the only thing to do is to chase down who I actually am and then take those comments to my employer and then further threaten my employer with legal action or a campaign to tell all the people he or she does does business with that she or he employs whatever that ist or ism is and therefore must condone or agree with that ist or ism making him or her an ist or ism him or herself.

Further, there is nothing that says I even get a chance to defend myself or that the accusation made against me is even an accurate representation. Furthermore, that one person could be so angry or spiteful that he or she creates a campaign that pulls in entire advocacy groups to pressure my employer.

So, talk to me again about my right to free speech.

If I can lose everything because of remarks taken out of context without the chance of defending myself because a mob decides they would like to ruin my life for the crime of disagreeing with them, then they can and will. There is no free speech. There is no agree to disgree and respecting that people hold differing opinions on things anymore.


So would you restrict that person's free speech so they couldn't tell your employer?

Or would you restrict your employer's right to fire you? (I suspect you disagree with employment protection laws but happy to be corrected).

Or would you restrict the rights of people to protest against companies so that they couldn't campaign for your dismissal?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SprocketUK

Doxing and threats of violence are certainly not free speech. However can we really say that calling for someone to lose their job should be banned? Have a think about the potential consequences of that.


Why not? Trying to get someone sacked is actually an extremely violent act. You are threatening someone's lively hood, their home, potentially their relationship with their spouse and causing real harm to any children....

Is that level of threat appropriate for someone saying something you don't like? Hell, getting a beating in the street would be less harmful wouldn't it?


Didn't say it was appropriate but would you really want a law stating you couldn't call for someones dismissal? Sports forums would die overnight for a start.

For example if the head of your local police force made a serious suggestion that all people of a certain ethnic minority should be locked up without trial would you really think it would be inappropriate to call for him to be sacked?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I think trying to cause real harm to people simply because they hold opinions you disagree with is a form of fascism.

I don't like most liberal ideologies or political correctness, but that doesn't mean I am going to seek to put someone out of a job for holding those beliefs. That does real, tangible harm to them for doing nothing more than expressing opinions I disagree with.

You are moving beyond free speech and into the realm of seeking to harm someone. It's called bullying.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Didn't say it was appropriate but would you really want a law stating you couldn't call for someones dismissal? Sports forums would die overnight for a start.


That's different.

Generally, in a sports forum people are criticizing actual poor performance or what they perceive to be poor performance. Let the QB go, he sucks! Fire the coach; he couldn't win a game if he had God himself on the sidelines! That's about how they perceive a person to be doing their job.

In order to make the analogy work in this context you would have to be saying, fire employee X. His racism affects how he serves Asians. But that's not the case. People generally say, "Did you know that employee X was caught on tape saying X? How dare you allow him to work for you. If you let him keep working here, it must mean your entire business is a racist organization because you let racists like employee X work here." That has nothing to do with how employee X does or does not do his job or treat whatever group he is supposedly racist against while doing it.
edit on 5-3-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I would agree but the only way to stop bullying is to restrict free speech

My point isn't about if someone's views are acceptable or not. Or about if someone else's reaction to those views are acceptable or not. But what restrictions would you put on other people's reactions to free speech that don't restrict their rights?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko


Didn't say it was appropriate but would you really want a law stating you couldn't call for someones dismissal? Sports forums would die overnight for a start.


That's different.

Generally, in a sports forum people are criticizing actual poor performance or what they perceive to be poor performance. Let the QB go, he sucks! Fire the coach; he couldn't win a game if he had God himself on the sidelines! That's about how they perceive a person to be doing their job.

In order to make the analogy work in this context you would have to be saying, fire employee X. His racism affects how he serves Asians. But that's not the case. People generally say, "Did you know that employee X was caught on tape saying X? How dare you allow him to work for you. If you let him keep working here, it must mean your entire business is a racist organization because you let racists like employee X work here." That has nothing to do with how employee X does or does not do his job or treat whatever group he is supposedly racist against while doing it.


So are you wiling to restrict person Y's opinion about wether what person X said is acceptable?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko


Didn't say it was appropriate but would you really want a law stating you couldn't call for someones dismissal? Sports forums would die overnight for a start.


That's different.

Generally, in a sports forum people are criticizing actual poor performance or what they perceive to be poor performance. Let the QB go, he sucks! Fire the coach; he couldn't win a game if he had God himself on the sidelines! That's about how they perceive a person to be doing their job.

In order to make the analogy work in this context you would have to be saying, fire employee X. His racism affects how he serves Asians. But that's not the case. People generally say, "Did you know that employee X was caught on tape saying X? How dare you allow him to work for you. If you let him keep working here, it must mean your entire business is a racist organization because you let racists like employee X work here." That has nothing to do with how employee X does or does not do his job or treat whatever group he is supposedly racist against while doing it.


So are you wiling to restrict person Y's opinion about wether what person X said is acceptable?


Why is this about restricting people's opinions?

It's not about restricting opinions. You can't stop a person from having opinions.

... well, wait, maybe you can. Do you have the ability to reach inside someone's head and stop them from thinking what they are going to think?


The fact is that the minute you decide that some opinions are acceptable to speak and others are not, this is what happens. You can hound people out of public life entirely. We've already accepted that some opinions are unacceptable and it has given some people incredible leverage to ruin others with very little proof of wrongdoing.

We are already in the world you want and this is the result. So why aren't you happy?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SprocketUK

Doxing and threats of violence are certainly not free speech. However can we really say that calling for someone to lose their job should be banned? Have a think about the potential consequences of that.


Why not? Trying to get someone sacked is actually an extremely violent act. You are threatening someone's lively hood, their home, potentially their relationship with their spouse and causing real harm to any children....

Is that level of threat appropriate for someone saying something you don't like? Hell, getting a beating in the street would be less harmful wouldn't it?


Didn't say it was appropriate but would you really want a law stating you couldn't call for someones dismissal? Sports forums would die overnight for a start.

For example if the head of your local police force made a serious suggestion that all people of a certain ethnic minority should be locked up without trial would you really think it would be inappropriate to call for him to be sacked?


I'll take the second point first.
There is a difference between being an individual with an opinion and being a senior public servant with an ability to command a wide audience.

If Joe Blow, who loads trucks for the Co Op is a racist, should he be forever denied a job? Or should he lose the one he has? As long as he doesn't actually discriminate against anyone why should he suffer in such a way? He will already find himself treated as a bit of an oddity by his peers and maybe even shunned in pubic if he is outspoken and horrible enough..

A chief constable making a statement about how he believes, say black people are the problem in his city, is an opinion former for many and will cause the general public to lose trust in his organisation. And chief executive who does harm to his organisation risks getting fired.


Now, as to how you stop people grassing, doxing and so on. I don't believe you need a new law. I think you need those at the heads of these organisations to consistently condemn such things, in the strongest possible terms. It will take time, but eventually it will be as unwelcome a thing as driving home from the pub after 6 pints.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko


Didn't say it was appropriate but would you really want a law stating you couldn't call for someones dismissal? Sports forums would die overnight for a start.


That's different.

Generally, in a sports forum people are criticizing actual poor performance or what they perceive to be poor performance. Let the QB go, he sucks! Fire the coach; he couldn't win a game if he had God himself on the sidelines! That's about how they perceive a person to be doing their job.

In order to make the analogy work in this context you would have to be saying, fire employee X. His racism affects how he serves Asians. But that's not the case. People generally say, "Did you know that employee X was caught on tape saying X? How dare you allow him to work for you. If you let him keep working here, it must mean your entire business is a racist organization because you let racists like employee X work here." That has nothing to do with how employee X does or does not do his job or treat whatever group he is supposedly racist against while doing it.


So are you wiling to restrict person Y's opinion about wether what person X said is acceptable?


Why is this about restricting people's opinions?

It's not about restricting opinions. You can't stop a person from having opinions.

... well, wait, maybe you can. Do you have the ability to reach inside someone's head and stop them from thinking what they are going to think?


The fact is that the minute you decide that some opinions are acceptable to speak and others are not, this is what happens. You can hound people out of public life entirely. We've already accepted that some opinions are unacceptable and it has given some people incredible leverage to ruin others with very little proof of wrongdoing.

We are already in the world you want and this is the result. So why aren't you happy?


We are having a conversation about freedom of speech and expressed opinions so not really sure what the point of your first three paragraphs are?

My point is simple. If freedom of speech allows person X to express any opinion they want the it also allows person Y to express any opinion they want including an opinion on person X.

I agree that people shouldn't be hounded for having an opinion, even if controversial, but how do you stop that without restricting free speech?



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

OK who gets to decide if someone is a public figure or not? Or if someones opinions are relavent to their job or not? Not disagreeing but how does it actually work in practise?

On your second point I agree although I think data protection also needs taken more seriously by online companies.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

If we take the view that doxing be "educated out of people" then the decision about whether someone is a public figure or some such, would be up to the organisation, wouldn't it?


If Joe, with ten followers on twitter says he thinks the holocaust was a fake, it's massively unlikely that there would be any comeback isn't it?


The same could not be said of a senior manager of a Hospital, a Chief Constable or Council Chief Exec talking to their thousands of tweeps or the newspapers, could it? I think it would be self regulating.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join