Author Topic: Should Freedom of Speech be absolute?  (Read 2298 times)

Offline Anndgrim

  • Local Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
  • Karma: +25/-9
  • Abnormal
    • View Profile
Should Freedom of Speech be absolute?
« on: April 02, 2013, 07:21:50 pm »
Should Freedom of speech protect incitation to hatred or to commit murder (if it results into a crime or not)?

Should one be held accountable for the direct consequences of their words?

If one were to talk someone into comitting a crime (without actually paying or blackmailing him into doing it), should he be punished?
Sig by dioz

Offline TommyHales

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +6/-6
  • Love Binds Us All
    • View Profile
Re: Should Freedom of Speech be absolute?
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2013, 08:16:30 am »
i think you should be able to say what you want unless it causes harm to someone. also for example things people consider racist unless the words are directed to someone with the intention of hurting this person then i think it should be allowed i mean its not racist to say the words unless your directing them to someone. and im just using racism as a example because quite a bit of it is verbal my point is unless words are used to hurt/convince someone to do something illegal you should be able to say what you want

Avatar: Twobit . Signiture: Kami(Dioz) v TommyHales ^



Offline balis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1104
  • Karma: +10/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Should Freedom of Speech be absolute?
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2013, 03:22:45 pm »
Words can pretty much destroy everyone if said in the right way at the right moment.

I'm pretty sure you could start a war just by insulting the right person (imagine the USA, or Israel for that matter, insulting the north Korean guy, or the Iranian one, forgot their name).

And on a much lower scale, you could easily push someone to suicide or murder by just talking to him (if he/she listens to you, pretty much the same way people listens to religious figure to commit suicide bombing and stuff like that..)

The problem is, you can't control the speech/words of people:
What rules would you enforce to "censure" it?
Who/What kind of person would create those rules?

Even if you create the absolute rule, the right one, with the best of intentions, there will always be someone who will outsmart that rules and bend it in his favor, and there will always be someone to shout and rebel for the liberty of speech and revolt against the idea of being forced to follow yet another law/rule..

       


        made by dioz/kami

Offline Dark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Karma: +9/-3
  • I don't care... doesn't mean I don't understand.
    • View Profile
Re: Should Freedom of Speech be absolute?
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2013, 09:16:55 pm »
Should Freedom of speech protect incitation to hatred or to commit murder (if it results into a crime or not)?

Should one be held accountable for the direct consequences of their words?

If one were to talk someone into comitting a crime (without actually paying or blackmailing him into doing it), should he be punished?

I'm pretty sure convincing a person or group of people to commit a crime is conspiracy and is already punishable by law in most countries. If you say, "Go kill this guy" and someone you were speaking to goes and kills that guy, you can't very well turn around and refer to a right to free speech in your defense.

Offline Lucifer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  • Karma: +11/-7
  • Philosophiser
    • View Profile
Re: Should Freedom of Speech be absolute?
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2013, 02:21:15 am »
This is a question with no real possible answer (or even a semi-good one really). To me, something like this can only be solved through eliminating it as an issue period. Which requires a significantly in-depth restructuring of society to rebuild a new-found level of understanding.

MyAnimeList | Trakt | Avy n Sig by Dioz

Offline AnimeFreak

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • Karma: +5/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Should Freedom of Speech be absolute?
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2013, 03:02:50 am »
Of course not, the very idea that it should be is just silly.

For example, if I yell "bomb" on an airplane and use my speech to convince them I have a bomb, and the airplane gets grounded, I cost the company a crap ton of money, I've inconvienced a ton of people, and I've definitely caused a ruckus, I should not be able to say "Well I have the right to say whatever I want." and then get off with a slap on the wrist and a "Don't do it next time."

To put it into more serious terms, if I slander someone, a confused teenage girl, to the point that she kills herself, there is no freedom of speech that should defend that.

Words can be twenty times as powerful as actions.
A lesson without pain is meaningless. That’s because you can not gain something without sacrificing something else in return. But, once you’ve over come the pain you will gain a heart that is stronger than anything else.

Offline CDeLorme

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: +37/-1
    • View Profile
    • Personal Portfolio
Re: Should Freedom of Speech be absolute?
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2013, 02:37:09 pm »
Alright, I need to start this response with a question.  Has anyone seen or read "Monster" (anime/manga), if not go look it up, everything related to this debate.


Anndgrimm, words, being what they are, don't have direct consequences, but I assume you meant indirect.


I sit on the fence for this, as it is a grey area with too many questions we don't have a way to answer.

I am strongly for the concept "Innocent until proven guilty".  I believe the law exists to respond to actions.  I do not see words as actions, rather shared thoughts, and I fear the day that becomes "controlled".

We don't have a method to measure intent, or how well someones arguments will convince another person, nor a way to account for whether they were frustrated, how frustrated, and if perhaps they were under the influence when the conversation happened.  Even more so if the conversation happened in written or digital format (well more digital, I'd imagine writing while drunk might be noticed).

On the opposite end we don't have a feasible way to measure psychological pain.  It will always be partial to the recipient, and I can already envision court cases similar to ones where the victim attends in a wheelchair and fake cast.

Conspiracy laws already handle some situations, but not all, and it still requires some form of evidence (such as a recording or written/digital copy of said words).

Society would become more anxious if they could not voice their frustrations without fear of some nut overhearing them and acting on their words.  Imagine computers with Breathalyzers to prevent drunken rage posts on blogs and forums.  Does that seem like a direction we want the world to head where things are more fixed than broken?


I know words can be powerful, but not on their own.  You can yell into an empty soundproof room about murdering everyone you don't like, and nothing will happen.  Words require two parties, and we would need a way to feasibly connect the two parties beyond "Did you hear them say ..."

Offline Katsuie

  • Local Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
  • Karma: +19/-20
  • Aldnoah Zero / Mecha of 2014
    • View Profile
Re: Should Freedom of Speech be absolute?
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2013, 01:44:47 am »
Yes it should be f***ing absolute, you f***ing chinks, crackers, negros and such.
I mean. f***.
"Men cry not for themselves, but for their comrades."

Offline Invid

  • not-a-bot
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +1/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Should Freedom of Speech be absolute?
« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2013, 09:24:12 am »
Just a thinker.

How would we have handled Freedom of Speech if Hitler was in the USA during his rise. All of his speeches would have been protected. The gatherings as long as they were peaceful are allowed.

Everyone has the RIGHT to say what ever they want when ever they want to who ever they want.

If you limit that you are oppressing the people and everyone knows what the USA does to those that oppress outside of the country since our government has no qualms about oppressing its own and arresting anyone who says different......Oh wait.

Offline Katakura Rosu

  • not-a-bot
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Going with the flow..
    • View Profile
Re: Should Freedom of Speech be absolute?
« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2013, 12:44:49 pm »
Should Freedom of speech protect incitation to hatred or to commit murder (if it results into a crime or not)?

Should one be held accountable for the direct consequences of their words?

If one were to talk someone into committing a crime (without actually paying or blackmailing him into doing it), should he be punished?

First of all, it's okay to revive topics like these right? I mean, it's technically an everlasting debate..

I think if someone was talked into committing a crime then it's not exactly the person who did the convincing who is at fault, sure he/she shouldn't have done that but regardless the person actually went and did the crime. That's their fault for doing what that person told them. Unless they were held at gun point or something, but of course that wouldn't be to do with freedom of speech :p.

Freedom of speech is a funny thing though, I really believe that people should be able to say whatever they wish. But in certain circumstances if what they say leads to something happening, like if they provoke someone or say a racist comment towards someone; then they deserve what is coming their way because at the end of the day it is their fault that from what they said resulted in say, loosing a job etc.

So I don't think there should be any laws or such against what people say but I do believe that then they are responsible for what ensues. If people say bad things or hurt others then they are only going to make their life harder.


<3 Morphine <3