Freedom of speech VS No Discrimination

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sun May 19, 2002 1:37 pm

So can I assume that you believe that no damage can be done to a person via verbal or linguistic expression?

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun May 19, 2002 2:42 pm

Originally posted by frogus
So can I assume that you believe that no damage can be done to a person via verbal or linguistic expression?

@frogus: This question of yours is directed, I think, at Ode, but I think you asked me something similar. People can SAY things which not only are bad, but also may have some direct negative impact on them. For example if a politician knowingly lies and calls his oponent a criminal. For such cases, we have laws against slander (or is it libel? - one is written, the other spoken), and those laws are prudent and just. But that is not what Stilgar's original post was discussing - he was asking about freedom of speech versus discrimination. As I said: hateful speech is deplorable, but I do not believe that laws should be created to limit it.

Shadow Sandrock · Post by **Shadow Sandrock** » Mon May 20, 2002 8:11 am

On an earlier note, I had wondered what happened to AR...

Anyways. The one thing I was trying to get at, is that in a "politically correct" world, why is so much racism allowed? And what's up with discrimination? If this world were really politically correct there'd be no such laws... there'd also be no Abortion but I won't get into that topic. Ooh, thread idea.

Anyways, since I've been grounded so dang long I'm posting in Computer Lit class, which I don't have everyday and I have it on different times, which is why I don't post quite so often anymore. But that's off-topic.

One final note. Does anybody have anything to say in the defense of the music that discriminates people? I mean, it is very popular music these days, albeit disgusting. Heh heh, just trying to get this thread going. I need somethin' to do for the next 35 minutes.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon May 20, 2002 8:36 am

Originally posted by Shadow Sandrock
If this world were really politically correct there'd be no such laws... there'd also be no Abortion but I won't get into that topic. Ooh, thread idea.

Are you sure? That is very sketchy ground, most men don't have the necessary grounding to make anything but fickle comments....though feel free to prove me wrong

One final note. Does anybody have anything to say in the defense of the music that discriminates people? I mean, it is very popular music these days, albeit disgusting. Heh heh, just trying to get this thread going. I need somethin' to do for the next 35 minutes.

People like dangerous things and it just so happens that type of music (i use the word loosely) is viewed as dangerous, also it attracts a lot of teenagers who have confused feelings and it gives them an outlet and peer group to work through.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon May 20, 2002 9:14 am

Freedom of speech or the right to express oneself is a very important component in a democracy. Of course there is always RESPONSIBILITY that goes with every freedom or right that you are entitled to.

However you must have (a) very good reason(s) if you are to express some strong feelings on something...

...not like "I just don't like your fungus face, period."

Duh.

BTW, why must there be a conscious effort to classify one's race in the workplace?

If the person is COMPETENT and able to the task expected, what has skin color have got anything to do with it?

Another duh.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Mon May 20, 2002 11:14 pm

I agree with what Mah is saying. It shouldn't matter what color, or religion or gender, someone is, so long as they do a good job.

@S Sandrock- I think we've already had an abortion debate here at SYM.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue May 21, 2002 9:34 am

This doesn't answer the question: You are saying that people should be trusted to say the right things, and if they don't, they can accept the consequences...fair enough, but could someone tell me why people shouldn't be trusted to do the right things, if they face the consequences afterwards. What is the difference between 'doing' and 'saying', or have you just made this decision randomly?

Shadow Sandrock · Post by **Shadow Sandrock** » Tue May 21, 2002 11:00 am

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
I agree with what Mah is saying. It shouldn't matter what color, or religion or gender, someone is, so long as they do a good job.

@S Sandrock- I think we've already had an abortion debate here at SYM.

Exactly. Competence is exactly what should count most, rather than something as silly as the color of their skin.

And thanks, I didn't want to start that thread without asking first. I'll probably go read it now, reading the debates is just as fun in competing in them.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Tue May 21, 2002 8:58 pm

Originally posted by frogus
This doesn't answer the question: You are saying that people should be trusted to say the right things, and if they don't, they can accept the consequences...fair enough, but could someone tell me why people shouldn't be trusted to do the right things, if they face the consequences afterwards. What is the difference between 'doing' and 'saying', or have you just made this decision randomly?

To my mind people should be trusted to do the right thing so long as they face the consequences also. IMO there should be laws, but only those laws designed to reasonably prevent harm from coming to other people, not the over-the-top, people-have-to-be protected-from-themselves laws we see today. However, I have been known to demonstrate an occasional tendancy towards naivety; I'm very much the idealist.

I made both decisions based in part upon how I myself would act in such a situation, but mostly based upon how I feel about the matter.

@Shadow Sandrock-It's fun to read the debates, I agree, but I'd say it's far more enjoyable to be a participant, given that you have a point of view you want to put forwards

.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Wed May 22, 2002 9:58 am

Is there a legal system which has already existed that you'd like better? (This isn't menna be a loaded question...just wanting to see what kind of thing you're getting at...

) But now think - Actually a law which protects people from harm is impossible - Laws cannot stop people getting killed. If I want to kill someone, I will do it, no matter what the hell the law thinks. I could do it right now (*Evil laughter*). The point is though, that laws deter people from doing wrong.
It is not the case that law is made so that people can do whatever they want, but the effects will not be too bad (like a soft cell) - that's impossible, of course you can't change the past. In real life, the law is more like a hard walled cell, but with spikes around the place. It is meant to discourage people from doing wrong. It can not prevent people from doing wrong. Anyway...

IMO there should be laws, but only those laws designed to reasonably prevent harm from coming to other people, not the over-the-top, people-have-to-be protected-from-themselves laws we see today.

So do you believe that the harm which can be done verbally or linguistically is not sufficient to warrant law being made to stop it. I assume that you agree with a law against murder, rape etc... You view it on a sliding scale, so that some crimes deserve punishment, and it just happens that abuse of freedom of speech is not a great enough crime to deserve law, right?

Ode to a Grasshopper · Wed May 22, 2002 8:39 pm

Originally posted by frogus
Is there a legal system which has already existed that you'd like better? (This isn't menna be a loaded question...just wanting to see what kind of thing you're getting at... )tc... You view it on a sliding scale, so that some crimes deserve punishment, and it just happens that abuse of freedom of speech is not a great enough crime to deserve law, right?

There isn't really a legal system I know of that's any better; hence the problem. I know the current Australian doesn't really work, but I don't know what would. It's quite possible there's no ideal system out there, if that's the case (or until I find it) I'll work on improving the system we've already got. Unfortunately as a student there's not much I can do at this point in time.

Whilst people can be hurt by words, I feel the need for freedom of speech overrides the necessity to protect people from random insults etc. IMHO if people don't like what they're hearing then don't listen, or develop a thicker skin and stop taking themselves so seriously.
And I do know what it's like to be verbally picked on, I was the kid everyone made fun of in primary school and I learned to just ignore them. It took me a few years to do but I got over it in the end.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Wed May 22, 2002 9:19 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong...

...but is the bottom line of the argument something like the validity of saying something like this: "I can say what I want to say about those *place racial expletives here*." ?

If so, why say such remarks? What justifies such a remark? You mean to say that one can say "just because..."? Really?

as I said earlier: you must have (a) very good reason(s) if you are to express some strong feelings on something...

To be honest, people tend to "sometimes get away" from these statements because of certain situations that provoked them. It doesnt justify it, but I reckon it explains it.

To answer the question: I think that yes, you may say what you want to say even if at times that it could hurt someone BUT you must have at least one damn good reason for saying so.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Wed May 22, 2002 9:44 pm

Re: Correct me if I'm wrong...

Originally posted by Maharlika
To answer the question: I think that yes, you may say what you want to say even if at times that it could hurt someone BUT you must have at least one damn good reason for saying so.

Exactly.