This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
312559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Most of what you listed are extrinsic rights. Rights granted by the government. The others are just sub-species of intrinsic rights.
Here's where you and I differ. You have these two types of rights ingrained in your mind, while failing to realise (possibly) that this division was decided by someone at some point. This decision can be changed over a period of time. Even to the extent that the right to life may become irrelevant.
Nope. The division is metaphysical in nature.
Intrinsic rights are those that one requires to live
qua
human fully.
So life would obviously be the foremost (being as you can't even live without it).
Freedom (of self) is another
Right to property because you can't live without materials.
Right to express yourself freely (humans are by nature social creatures).
The right to procreate.
etc.
Those are all intrinsic.
The right to shoot fireworks is not intrinsic to my humanity. Therefore it can or cannot be granted by the government arbitrarily.
Post by
465729
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Nothing is perfect, but some things are practical, some things are not. Building walls around everything you disagree on is not practical.
So the people who don't like the other guy's right to free speech are to lazy to so such an impractical thing. So then the burden automatically falls on the other guy? He's just and innocent guy expressing his intrinsic right.
You've confused 'speech' with 'giant pornographic billboard'. You've confused 'talking' with 'harrassing'. 'Speech' is just that: Speech. If something illegal accompanys the speech, then the freedom of speech does not protect the illegal activity. The whole 'freedom of expression' thing is not legal, especially when expression comes at a cost to others.
This all seems like common sense to me. I'm surprised by how many people don't get it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You've confused 'speech' with 'giant pornographic billboard'. You've confused 'talking' with 'harrassing'. 'Speech' is just that: Speech. If something illegal accompanys the speech, then the freedom of speech does not protect the illegal activity. The whole 'freedom of expression' thing is not legal, especially when expression comes at a cost to others.
This all seems like common sense to me. I'm surprised by how many people don't get it.
Speech is not just words. Does a mute guy automatically lose his right to free speech? Are there certain words in sign-language that can't be used?
Speech also includes written words. The 1st amendment made sure to include press in its wording to avoid any confusion.
In short, speech is any type of communication.
And I've been trying to get you to tell me what this "cost to others" is. As I said, you'll have a hard time proving that naked women causes harm (and we're not talking about moral harm here).
And by using "illegal" above you're just begging the question.
Post by
MyTie
Should a 50 year old man be able to sit in city parks and flirt with 8 year old boys?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Should a 50 year old man be able to sit in city parks and flirt with 8 year old boys?
As long as he doesn't say anything that would suggest illegal acts, then I don't see anything
legally
wrong with it. It's public property, and if the boys aren't old enough under the law to make decisions on what and what not to listen to then they should not be left unsupervised.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
320827
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Quest
watch your thoughts, they become words
watch your words, they become actions
watch your actions, they become habits
watch your habits, they become character
your character
This is one of my favourite phrases. Having someone watching over you and helping you create a good character isn't always all that bad
Thats called "parents"
Not "govenment".
Post by
MyTie
Should a 50 year old man be able to sit in city parks and flirt with 8 year old boys?
As long as he doesn't say anything that would suggest illegal acts, then I don't see anything
legally
wrong with it. It's public property, and if the boys aren't old enough under the law to make decisions on what and what not to listen to then they should not be left unsupervised.
So, if I'm walking through the park with my kid, and a 50 year old man walks behind us, explaining details about sexual acts he has done in the past, as well as an intimate physical discription of himself, that's ok? Let's say we have 10 blocks to walk and he walks behind us the whole way. Let's say that's all he does all day to kids. You're ok with this?
I believe in conservative government, and as much freedoms as is possible, but even I have limits.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So, if I'm walking through the park with my kid, and a 50 year old man walks behind us, explaining details about sexual acts he has done in the past, as well as an intimate physical description of himself, that's ok? Let's say we have 10 blocks to walk and he walks behind us the whole way. Let's say that's all he does all day to kids. You're ok with this?
I believe in conservative government, and as much freedoms as is possible, but even I have limits.
No, I'm not okay with it, but for moral reasons, not legal. Just because you're against something on a moral basis does not give you the right to limit someone else's rights.
If you're concerned about your kid, buy him an ipod.
Post by
MyTie
So, if I'm walking through the park with my kid, and a 50 year old man walks behind us, explaining details about sexual acts he has done in the past, as well as an intimate physical description of himself, that's ok? Let's say we have 10 blocks to walk and he walks behind us the whole way. Let's say that's all he does all day to kids. You're ok with this?
I believe in conservative government, and as much freedoms as is possible, but even I have limits.
No, I'm not okay with it, but for moral reasons, not legal. Just because you're against something on a moral basis does not give you the right to limit someone else's rights.
If you're concerned about your kid, buy him an ipod.
Why are we opposed to murder other than moral reasons? Should murder also be legal? If I'm concerned about my kid, I could just buy him a bullet proof vest. I don't want to impede on murderer's rights.
There has to be a line drawn between appropriate and inappropriate. We obviously draw that line at different places. If some 50 year old guy describes his private organs to my daughter, he's going to have a broken nose and some lost teeth when I'm done with him.
Post by
TheMediator
Morals aren't exactly the same as ethics. Its considered immoral in most societies (that being key, that morals change from society to society) to smoke marijuana, even if there isn't anything ethically wrong with it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why are we opposed to murder other than moral reasons?
Because the right to life is the foremost intrinsic human right.
Should murder also be legal?
No. See above.
If I'm concerned about my kid, I could just buy him a bullet proof vest.
And you should, if you really are concerned.
I don't want to impede on murderer's rights.
He doesn't have the right to shoot you.
There has to be a line drawn between appropriate and inappropriate.
That's the job of a parent, not the job of the government.
We obviously draw that line at different places.
People do. Not the government.
If some 50 year old guy describes his private organs to my daughter, he's going to have a broken nose and some lost teeth when I'm done with him.
And you'd be imprisoned for assault. Don't mix moral and legal.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Morals aren't exactly the same as ethics. Its considered immoral in most societies (that being key, that morals change from society to society) to smoke marijuana, even if there isn't anything ethically wrong with it.
Ethics = Moral philosophy (ie the philosophy of morals).
You can't separate the two.
Post by
MyTie
Morals aren't exactly the same as ethics. Its considered immoral in most societies (that being key, that morals change from society to society) to smoke marijuana, even if there isn't anything ethically wrong with it.
Ethics = Moral philosophy (ie the philosophy of morals).
You can't separate the two.
TheMediator - You didn't get banned? Wow. I guess people can say anything they want on wowhead and to hell with rules.
Hyper - You are trying to distinguish between human rights and morals. Because the right to life is the foremost intrinsic human right.
At what cost to others can people use their rights until it becomes unacceptable? Your suggestions that people can say whatever they want to 8 year olds, and put up giant pornographic billboards, begs into question your ability to distinguish between 'rights' and 'common sense'. I don't understand your push to remove morality from the question when granting people rights to do things. It should be very easy for you to think of a situation where freedom of speech is not applicable.
I've already thought of two, but I'll give you another:
What if your neighbor set up massive speakers in his yard, a hundred of them, and aimed them at your house, and shouted the 'F' word into them repetituously for a month straight? Are his actions protected by the first amendment?
Post by
TheMediator
TheMediator - You didn't get banned? Wow. I guess people can say anything they want on wowhead and to hell with rules.
Why would I have been banned?
At what cost to others can people use their rights until it becomes unacceptable?
Until they infringe upon the rights of others. I would say not being disturbed in your own home is a right you have, so in the case where they're blasting noise into your house, they're infringing upon you.
The public nudity thing... uhhh... not really sure what you would classify that as. That's one customary thing that I think I'm fine with staying as is, because I don't really think there's any ethical reason for reversing the laws restricting public nudity.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Hyper - You are trying to distinguish between human rights and morals.
Indeed. A right is an entitlement. A moral is a code of conduct.
At what cost to others can people use their rights until it becomes unacceptable?
Until they conflict with an equal or higher right of another.
Your suggestions that people can say whatever they want to 8 year olds, and put up giant pornographic billboards, begs into question your ability to distinguish between 'rights' and 'common sense'.
What does common sense have to do with this?
I don't understand your push to remove morality from the question when granting people rights to do things.
Rights aren't granted. I thought you of all people agreed with that.
It should be very easy for you to think of a situation where freedom of speech is not applicable.
Yes, when it conflicts with an equal of higher right of another.
I've already thought of two, but I'll give you another:
What if your neighbor set up massive speakers in his yard, a hundred of them, and aimed them at your house, and shouted the 'F' word into them repetituously for a month straight? Are his actions protected by the first amendment?
You're on private property, and entailed in the right to private property is the right to not be disturbed.
Right to private property > right of freedom of speech
This is different from the guy on the street example because that's public property.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.