Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you can't explain? Gotcha.

I won't explain.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I know. You can't explain. You just leave us with "you don't care".

So your post is pointless. It adds nothing to your thread.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

No I won't explain because your education isn't my concern. I care deeply about the topic at hand; you don't. You don't even care to learn what it is and why we it is considered a fundamental human right. Or am I wrong?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You think most Americans don't care. That's a ridiculous assertion. You act all high and mighty and think you're better than others and know more than others. "Most don't know or don't care" is being arrogant.

And of course it is our fundamental right. That others suppress your free speech forcefully doesn't take away that right. Of course you are going to be met with some opposition and even violence. History is filled with that. It's naive to not expect possible consequences due to human nature.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

You're pretending to know how I act and think.

Do you know or care why freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment or human right codes?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Vroomfondel

When there are binding agreements and contracts to not say or do certain things then yes, there should be consequences. But that is more a consequence of signing the contract just as much as it is breaking it.

Freedom of speech says simply to let people speak, not to go out of ones way to insult others or scream racial epithets or disrupt the business of others.

The contracts are a new facet in this discussion. If you have signed such a contract you have signed away your freedom to speak as you please.

Freedom to speak is indeed simply letting people speak. But there is no generally recognized moral or ethical imperative that guides or directs that speech. To apply one is the beginning of censorship. In other words, freedom of speech means sometimes you are going to hear things you don't like. There is what is considered socially acceptable, but that differs from one social group to the next. In a way, we all have our own censorship that we apply on the go, so to speak, and we expect people to abide by our wishes and we are disappointed when they do not. Yet we feel offended when someone applies their preferred censorship to us. It is belittling to have your speech corrected or to have someone imply that something you said was inappropriate. We are all guilty of, and victim of, censorship to some degree.

If I may, I think the crux of the original post was not so much the free speech but the manner in which people react to it. I think we all want to believe we have evolved to a point where knee-jerk violence is not the preferred manner of response, but society is forever reminding us that some are slower to evolve than others.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There it is again assuming that I don't care. Why do you think people come in here to discuss your topic? If they don't care then why did they even come here?

Me pretending to know how you think and act? I don't have to do that. You already act that way on your own.

But anyway I find it interesting that nobody replied to my scenario about a person yelling fire in a movie theater.
You have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater but would you be surprised if people got hurt?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

That sounds about right. The main point of the OP is mostly that we do not do enough to protect free speech, even to the point of victim blaming.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

we do not do enough to protect free speech

You mean passing more laws against violence? That's a slippery slope.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There it is again assuming that I don't care. Why do you think people come in here to discuss your topic? If they don't care then why did they even come here?

Me pretending to know how you think and act? I don't have to do that. You already act that way on your own.

I never assumed. That's why I asked.

You did pretend to know how I act and think by telling me how I act an think, which is an impossibility.

So I'll ask again, do you know or care why free speech is a fundamental human right?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

we do not do enough to protect free speech

You mean passing more laws against violence? That's a slippery slope.

No.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You said "most". That's a broad assumption. Why assume that about us when we come here in your thread to discuss? It's obvious we care.

do you know or care why free speech is a fundamental human right?

If you haven't figured that out by now then sorry. You really don't know nor you care.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I like the way you present and defend your position. Nicely done Sir.

S&F for you.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Awesome answer.

Anyway see you just did it again. Saying something without really explaining.
What can we do more to protect free speech?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I haven't figured it out because you haven't answered my question. Do you know and care why freedom of speech is a fundamental human right?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

First you'll have to explain couple of your posts. That is if you care?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

First you'll have to explain couple of your posts. That is if you care?

Nevermind. Forget I asked.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

First you'll have to explain couple of your posts. That is if you care?

Nevermind. Forget I asked.

Just answer your own stupid gotcha question and get on with it. Everybody knows why speech is protected. But nobody is going to step into your trap here.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

None of your points have anything to do with what I said, sadly. One of the main points is that people like to pay lip-service to free speech but no less prefer restrictions, like most countries, or do nothing to defend the right in their fellow citizens, like most in this thread. Another is that it is a form of victim blaming, not unlike freedom to wear what you want, but not freedom from the consequences of wearing what you want.

You already have free speech. Your rights are already defended. I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of people in the western world would and do defend free speech.

Victim blaming has absolutely nothing to do with it.