• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Freedom of speech

Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
135
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
I'm curious as to what people think on the issue of limits on free speech. I'm sure most everybody in this country wants to be able to speak their mind and express themselves without recrimination. But what about the controversial things like slander and libel, pornography, public nudity as a means of expression and graffiti? Should we have any kind of censorship? To what limit should one be able to criticize the government and its policies, and when does opposing government policy go too far? What kinds of protest should be allowed, and what kinds shouldn't? I'm curious to see people's opinions on this.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
Do what you want, the government has no right to intrude.

If you don't like pornography etc, you can decide not to view it for yourself. But you have no right to FORCE others not to view pornography (as long as all peoples involved consent to it, FORCED pornography is still wrong).
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Well personally I think we should imply Stalinistic policies and destroy all offending opinions in the world.

Just kidding.

Freedom of Speech is the shiz yo.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
135
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
Freedom of speech should only be limited if the speech is clearly something that can cause someone to be hurt, like making a death threat, or actively trying to incite violence, or yelling fire in a crowded room.
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
has anybody looked at the work of JS mill on this subject. im parts i agree with what he says. we should protect the right to free speech, unless this cause's harm to others. the so called 'harm principle' what constitutes harm is something that could be debated forever. but individuals should be allowed to say or think whatever they like. there must surely be limit's to what people can say or do. we can not allow people to publish articles who's sole purpose is religious hatred, nor can articles calling for terrorist attacks be allowed. where we draw the line however is harder then you can imagine. it is a constant balance between freedom of speech and freedom from harm.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
Blue Hobgoblin said:
Freedom of speech should only be limited if the speech is clearly something that can cause someone to be hurt, like making a death threat, or actively trying to incite violence, or yelling fire in a crowded room.
Something like yelling "fire" in a crowded room where there is no fire is fraud.
Fraud is already illegal, there's no need for special laws against it.

Also, making a death threat is the same way. They are coercing someone into something, which violates their natural right to liberty.




globalvision said:
we can not allow people to publish articles who's sole purpose is religious hatred, nor can articles calling for terrorist attacks be allowed. where we draw the line however is harder then you can imagine.
Who exactly is "we"? How can you define what is in the best interest for everyone? The answer is, it's not possible.

While discrimination seems immoral and unethical to some, it is a way of life. When you hire the best person for a job, you discriminate against people without job experience. When you choose a denomination, you discriminate against all the others. Discrimination is a natural part of life. It will happen and does happen.

In fact, when you make discrimination against the law, you are discriminating against all discriminators (which is everyone).

No one is supposed to be judged by the government for their beliefs. This may include the belief of some that all people of a certain denomination or race are bad people. The person who carries these beliefs is likely to be unpopular or hated by others as well, but that is no reason to use FORCE to make them stop their discrimination. Don't like it, turn the other way.


As for the terrorist attack threats, they are still open to their opinion so long as they don't act on that opinion, which would harm people's rights.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I guess you can't have freedom without responsibility. And I guess how you define things is the sticky part!

There are people here making posts that I take to be essentially homophobic. But that's OK with me. Denying those people the right to (peacefully) express their opinion will not help anything. Encouraging debate might help. Where do you draw the line?:confused:
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
i have not leaned yet how to include quotes in here but what the hell

i am certainly not against people having there views on any matter and everyone should have the opportunity to say as they wish, this must however be within limits. would you really stand by if Hitler was ranting in central park saying that all Jews should die and that the Aryan nation is superior to all else.

we must surely have limits on what be publicly said in certain situations. we, me, i, us whatever.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
globalvision said:
i have not leaned yet how to include quotes in here but what the hell

i am certainly not against people having there views on any matter and everyone should have the opportunity to say as they wish, this must however be within limits. would you really stand by if Hitler was ranting in central park saying that all Jews should die and that the Aryan nation is superior to all else.

we must surely have limits on what be publicly said in certain situations. we, me, i, us whatever.
Absolutely agree. But just where are those limits?

Hit the "quote" button! Then you can split quotes by using, within square brackets, "quote" and "/quote"
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
globalvision said:
would you really stand by if Hitler was ranting in central park saying that all Jews should die and that the Aryan nation is superior to all else.
I would laugh at him, then wonder why parks are owned by stupid government officials, then take a picture, then go home and email it to everyone I know.

There is nothing wrong with Hitler thinking all Jews should die. There IS something wrong, however, if he starts to kill the Jews.



globalvision said:
we must surely have limits on what be publicly said in certain situations. we, me, i, us whatever.
As long as it doesn't violate anyone else's life, liberty, or property, it should be perfectly legal. But if they go so far as to communicate fraud, its illegal.
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
Naughty Nurse said:
Absolutely agree. But just where are those limits?
well i will be damned hopefully i may be able to put a quote it

who should set them is the million dollar question, there should be limits, but who sets the limits, um tough aint it.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
globalvision said:
well i will be damned hopefully i may be able to put a quote it
Congratulations!

who should set them is the million dollar question, there should be limits, but who sets the limits, um tough aint it.
Sure is tough!
 
Last edited:

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
well naughty nurse. i think that i should be in charge of what can and cannot be said. well thats that solved then aint it.

michael clarke for world leader. better then bush anyway
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
There is only one concept needed as a limit.


That is the concept of self-ownership.

Each individual owns their body, actions, and products of labor.
Anyone who violates those rights without the persons consent is breaking the law.



That's the only thing needed for a successful society. A society in which there is liberty, self responsibility, and peaceful cooperation.
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
Gabo said:
Each individual owns their body, actions, and products of labor.
.
what is your products of labor (as u spell it over there) how do we value your labour.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Gabo said:
There is only one concept needed as a limit.


That is the concept of self-ownership.

Each individual owns their body, actions, and products of labor.
Anyone who violates those rights without the persons consent is breaking the law.
If you're employed you do not own the products of your labour, and you do not completely own your own body - there are regulations about what can be done with your body after you die, for example. In many parts of the world there are quite restrictive laws about the types of sexual activity you can indulge in. There are few absolute rights in this word!
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
globalvision said:
well naughty nurse. i think that i should be in charge of what can and cannot be said. well thats that solved then aint it.
Well, you're going to be busy then!!

globalvision for world leader!:p
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
i agree, absolutes in these cases cannot exist. we own our thoughts and so forth surely that is an absolute. but we can not own the products of our labour. surely then taxes are an infringement upon us. without taxes though we would all be a hell of a lot worse off.

actions must be restricted, u cannot go around doing whatever you wish there are laws that prevent you from doing certain actions, or should we be permitted to do anything as long as it does not physically harm anyone else.

we own our own bodies, not everyone can say that, do children own there own bodies, should they be allowed to do whatever they wish to themselves of should they be of a certain age and have the mental faculties to understand what they are doing. what about the mentally incapable?
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
thanks naughty nurse, you my first supporter, now all i need is GOD on my side and the americans are all mine. evil plan is underway
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
globalvision said:
thanks naughty nurse, you my first supporter, now all i need is GOD on my side and the americans are all mine. evil plan is underway
:rofl . Go get 'em!
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
globalvision said:
what is your products of labor (as u spell it over there) how do we value your labour.
The products of your labor are anything you put time and energy into.
They are what many people define as 'property'.

Naughty Nurse said:
If you're employed you do not own the products of your labour, and you do not completely own your own body - there are regulations about what can be done with your body after you die, for example. In many parts of the world there are quite restrictive laws about the types of sexual activity you can indulge in. There are few absolute rights in this word!
Your employment to a company is a CONSENTED exchange of product/service, which makes it perfectly legal. Violation of rights is only illegal when achieved by FORCE.



globalvision said:
but we can not own the products of our labour. surely then taxes are an infringement upon us. without taxes though we would all be a hell of a lot worse off.
Taxes are simply a way to...
1) allow government to give away our hard earned money to special interests
2) provide a product/service publicly that could be provided just as well or possibly even better if done privately
3) redistribute wealth

Each of these things do not make our lives "a hell of a lot" better. In fact, lots of what the government does with our taxes actually make our lives worse.

There is no such thing as a cookie cutter lifestyle that will fit everyone. Each individual has their own belifs, wants, needs, personality, and preferences. Government is most beneficial when it allows each individual to create their own cookie cutter instead of trying to squish the general public into a cookie cutter of its own making.

Self-interest service allows for a variety of cookies, both good and bad. But most of all, people are allowed to be themselves, and run their own lives.



globalvision said:
u cannot go around doing whatever you wish there are laws that prevent you from doing certain actions, or should we be permitted to do anything as long as it does not physically harm anyone else.
Not only should physical harm be prohibited, but any harm done to an individual's or group's natural rights.

There is no reason to limit people beyond this point, as everyone is unique and prefers a different lifestyle than everyone else.



globalvision said:
do children own there own bodies, should they be allowed to do whatever they wish to themselves of should they be of a certain age and have the mental faculties to understand what they are doing. what about the mentally incapable?
Children are under the legal guardianship of their parents. This means their parents can (and often do) make many or all of their decisions for them. The child, however, should be free to renounce the guardianship at any time if they would rather be self-serving and self-sufficient.

Also, mentally incapable is a different story. If the person wasn't always mentally incapable, they could create a contract allowing them to be put under the guardianship of someone should they become incapable. A sanity will, if you get what I mean.

But, should they fail to create a contracted agreement, they are free to stay individual and on their own. If they break the law, they should be treated just the same as everyone else.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
The products of your labor are anything you put time and energy into.
They are what many people define as 'property'.


Your employment to a company is a CONSENTED exchange of product/service, which makes it perfectly legal. Violation of rights is only illegal when achieved by FORCE.




Taxes are simply a way to...
1) allow government to give away our hard earned money to special interests
2) provide a product/service publicly that could be provided just as well or possibly even better if done privately
3) redistribute wealth

Each of these things do not make our lives "a hell of a lot" better. In fact, lots of what the government does with our taxes actually make our lives worse.

There is no such thing as a cookie cutter lifestyle that will fit everyone. Each individual has their own belifs, wants, needs, personality, and preferences. Government is most beneficial when it allows each individual to create their own cookie cutter instead of trying to squish the general public into a cookie cutter of its own making.

Self-interest service allows for a variety of cookies, both good and bad. But most of all, people are allowed to be themselves, and run their own lives.




Not only should physical harm be prohibited, but any harm done to an individual's or group's natural rights.

There is no reason to limit people beyond this point, as everyone is unique and prefers a different lifestyle than everyone else.




Children are under the legal guardianship of their parents. This means their parents can (and often do) make many or all of their decisions for them. The child, however, should be free to renounce the guardianship at any time if they would rather be self-serving and self-sufficient.

Also, mentally incapable is a different story. If the person wasn't always mentally incapable, they could create a contract allowing them to be put under the guardianship of someone should they become incapable. A sanity will, if you get what I mean.

But, should they fail to create a contracted agreement, they are free to stay individual and on their own. If they break the law, they should be treated just the same as everyone else.
Governement is not an 'evil' as you seem to think. It is a tool of the people. The redistribution of wealth is a way to give money to those who need it, it is a 'safety net' created with the idea that everybody deserves a second chance. I happen to agree with this, I can't understand why you don't. This is the theory on government ownership of production: The state can manage economic affairs of its own constituency, eliminating or minimising the severe fluctuations that are otherwise part of the trade cycle. State intervention can also minimize poverty and unemployment. This can help not only society by using the productive power of capitalism to help workers, but it also provides businesses with a workforce that is better educated and healthier. One can go around the globe and see state intervention in place. There is quite a bit in the USA (although, since the 1980's when the New Deal began to be ripped apart, there is less and less state intervention), and even more in Canada, France, and Germany. It seems that Britain and the USA are going one way, while Canada and western Europe are going the other.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Governement is not an 'evil' as you seem to think. It is a tool of the people.
Of course its a tool of the people. The difference between our views is that you believe it should serve the people on a majority rules basis, while I believe it should serve ALL people's interests equally.



anomaly said:
The redistribution of wealth is a way to give money to those who need it, it is a 'safety net' created with the idea that everybody deserves a second chance. I happen to agree with this, I can't understand why you don't.
I have no problem with the redistribution of wealth to help the unfortunate get back on their feet and have a second chance with something.

I DO have a problem, however, when we are FORCED to redistribute our wealth.



anomaly said:
This is the theory on government ownership of production: The state can manage economic affairs of its own constituency, eliminating or minimising the severe fluctuations that are otherwise part of the trade cycle.
Free markets may fluctuate sometimes, but they ultimately create higher efficiency, lower costs, and create new ideas.

Government controlled markets, on the other hand, often stick to one idea and enforce that idea with no desire for change. They prevent competition to deliver the best product, and limit innovation.



anomaly said:
State intervention can also minimize poverty and unemployment.
State intervention is the biggest causer of unemployment, which in turn creates more poverty.

They do this with their minimum wage laws that hurt more than they help. In trying to relieve poverty caused by holding such jobs, they end up losing the entire job market to overseas industry. Not only that, but small businesses usually can't afford to pay high wages, and can't go overseas for fairer wages. Instead, they are often forced into bankruptcy or decreased quality.

Furthermore, jobs with low wages are not meant as permanent ones. They are simply the first step on the economic ladder of success, granting the employee valuable job experience and knowledge, while also providing something in the way of wages.
 

globalvision

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
sometimes gabo workers get stuck in low paid jobs, unable to get higher paid jobs as there experience is in cleaning or so forth, how do these people move up the ladder as you say. you have a very simplistic view of how easy it is to get higher paid jobs. there must always be some that will earn less then others, regardless of how much effort they put in. the minimum wage can damage an economy if it is set above the market clearing level. i doubt very much that the American minimum wage is set anywhere close to this level.
there must surely be some regulation to prevent the exploitation of workers. i wonder what it is you do or what your future job will be?
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I completely agree with you, globalvision. Gabo, capitalism without regulation results in the total exploitation of the worker. In the USA thankfully we have plenty of regulations (although now workers are losing their rights with every passing year), but looking at the international stage, one can see the worker exploitation that fuels trans-global corporations. The seatshops and child labor in China are a prime example of this. The trickle down effect capitalism promises usually looks more like a 'trickle up' effect, as low wages continue to give corporations more and more profit. I mean Gabo, why do you think the Gov't stepped in in the first place? Just to cause havoc? It is to protect the workers! What you are proposing would of course destroy the middle class, and, as I see it, with all that worker exploitation, inevitably result in revolution. You seem to think that it is in the businesses best interests to give the worker more rights. This is not true at all!! The less rights (money) given to the worker, the greater the profit the businesses will collect, and that is, of course, what capitalism is all about: profit.
 
Top Bottom