Is Free Speech Really What We Want?

First let me add a disclaimer to the discussion. I am not at all against free speech. I am an advocate for a certain type of free speech. I love the challenging of ideas, even the challenging of free speech itself. That sort of discourse seems like it is extremely useful.

However, free speech brings with it a precedent that people should speak their mind freely - sometimes without a filter. I know I'll be called a special snow flake for this, but I don't care. Imagine a world where you can say something online and it sticks there forever. You may have been 10 years old, and you had an opinion, and for some reason it became famous or popular. Now you are 30 and every time an employer googles your name, this embarrassing opinion shows up. Imagine that you are a minority, and someone says something specific against you because of your race. How did that help society? Do we really benefit from war propaganda? Would we be a better society if we couldn't insult a person's character (i.e. we could only insult their ideas)?

Now, I'm not suggesting that we should limit people from free speech. People should be able to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and moan about anything they like. They should be allowed to say whatever they want, but the idea that free speech is always helpful should most definitely be abolished. We need to learn how to wheeled this weapon because at the present it seems like free speech is something that is absolutely dividing us, whether it's the spread of fake news or racism or trolling on the internet... all the way down to bullying children in schools. Just imagine a society where we all had free speech, but we also had absolutely no morals.

Now maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to tear this idea to shreds or ignore it, but take a moment to consider that perhaps you're wrong. Perhaps we're all wrong. Challenge the idea for a second. After writing this I believe I am still very strongly on the side of free speech. It's almost a necessary evil or a double edged sword. And I definitely acknowledge the slippy slope. Still, as we grow as a society, I believe we need to challenge ideas, even our closely held principles.

 

free speech means the government can't prevent your speech .... it doesn't mean people can not disagree with it

 

Can you provide an example of any opinion leader who has ever advanced the "...the idea that free speech is always helpful..."?

 

You, me, and everyone else is free to say what we want, to anyone that we want. The individual on the receiving end of what we said is free to reply as he/she decides.

The government cannot do a damn thing about it, and we should all be thankful for that. Otherwise, N. Korea, or Cuba would be a good place to live.

 

Then why does the Progressive Socialist Marxist Left enforce Politically Correct speech and everything they don't like is considered hate speech?

 

There is an inherent problem with Free Speech. It's based upon the assumption that most people (hearing someone's free speech) are able to think for themselves, honestly evaluate that speech and conceive an opinion.

Decades of government regulated public education has produced a generation incapable of thinking for themselves or evaluating a situation based upon the known facts. Is it any wonder they are demanding safe spaces and the elimination of trigger words?

 

Hopefully under the Trump admin PC BS has come to an end, and once again we will have free speech.

 

PC nonsense will never end. As long as the PC police can't enforce their preferences legally, we have to live with them trying to manipulate us psychologically. We just need to make sure their methods don't work.

 

Yes I see what the OP is saying. Some speech is just meant to be harmful. The same speech is never constructive so I'm of the belief society can do without it. The best way to deal with this type of speech though is probably through social pressure. If social pressure fails, the government should step in.

 

Not likely, given his opposition to free speech.

 

Well, free speech is what Liberals want, but they don't want the same for Conservatives. The Attorney General said she would bring charges against anyone trashing Muslims, but those in BLM can call for the murdering of White babies and I have heard nothing about charges being brought against her.

 

It's definitely helpful in the sense that when people give their opinions, now you know where they stand and there's no doubt, especially if they're incredibly controversial.

- - - Updated - - -

You haven't lost it, people are just getting called out on their (*)(*)(*)(*) more.

 

AG Loretta Lynch Promises to 'Take Action' Against 'Anti-Muslim ...

://www.mediaite.com/.../ag-loretta-lynch-promises-to-take......


'Black Lives Matter' activist: 'Kill all white babies' -- Video .

conservativefiringline.com › Politics

Jul 18, 2016 - With video. A woman identified as a Black Lives Matter supporter is seen on video demanding that all white babies be killed

 

I understand your point of view but the problem I have with this argument is that if you limit some speech, then you create a slippery slope that will limit more and more speech as time goes on. Also words are not harmful they are just words, I am a high functioning Autistic male which is a minority in this country, if someone comes up to me and calls me a retard, my response is to tell them to go (*)(*)(*)(*) them selves and go on about my day. People need to stop letting words hurt them they are just words. This is why I hate political correctness because it allows people to ignore some ones possible rational argument just because they said a naughty word. Free speech is the only way a free expression of ideas can be had.

 

Why would you ever willingly permit another human or group of humans MORE opportunities to punish you? Do you believe they won't? Do you believe such an increase in arbitrary 'governmental' authority can't be abused....perhaps by people who don't share to your worldviews?

Or, is it that you simply believe you'll be immune from punishment because you're a 'good person' who doesn't say 'controversial' things?

(I'm forever fascinated by the ease in which humans will relinquish their rights)

 

It's nothing else than computer write or you meant that we only need news sites and then Wikipedia infact this is you dreams are???

 

The government shall NOT regulate my speech.

 

What's a greater danger to our Republic and our posterity:
1. Bad people saying mean things and idiots believing it.
2. A government with the power to manipulate speech and opinions. (can you say Ministry of Truth ?)

As a free people we need to decide - will we take the time and effort to research both sides of a story, or would we rather be "un-offended" with a palpable official government position.

 

That's not a problem with free speech, that's a problem with critical thinking.

 

Fair questions, hear me out though:

Let's say there is a faction calling for the expulsion of a group as they cheer any execution or jailing of this group. And let's say the reasoning for this speech is shoddy at best. This is a group of humans bent on punishing another group via inflammatory rhetoric. While this group may not be as powerful as the government, they can still incite hatred, malice, and violence towards the group(s) they don't like.

Also, as long as there are groups of people, there will always be opportunities for them to punish others even if they are not in government.

I say controversial things all the time, but I try to have supporting reasons when I'm challenged on them. The speech I'm talking about is purely inflammatory with no redeeming value.

 

So, you would rather that government limit what speech is acceptable? Seriously? So, if we take your example as a contradiction of current government standards, you'd be willing to accept the legal consequences of your challenge to the authority of the government that tells you that there is now no restriction on speech? Would you seriously be willing to put yourself in jail because you allow government to dictate what you can or cannot say?

This is the idiocy of the facebook society. The expectation that group think must be the norm.

 

I'd say #1 is worse by far. #1 is how the world ended up with the worst genocides in human history. It is also how people are able to be alright with human rights abuses in their own backyards when they claim to be civilized.

#2 is bad due to reach, but is mitigated because of the power shared in government. Usually there is some check and balance in government. Also, government has a long history of trying to placate the masses. Unlike individuals or small factions who seek to demonize others to gain and retain power.

 

This is how you learn when you are wrong.

Besides, this is about critical thinking and consequences....and the dangers of technology.

This isn't a problem with free speech.

Neither society, nor individuals, benefit when our true thoughts and motivations are hidden behind politically correct baloney.

 

Ok, so BLMs folks are asking for, calling for the infanticide of all white babies. Is this what you're concerned with? If not, why? Or, do we, as a culture understand that this is hyperbolic, and stupid and castigate the speaker or group for their racist hatred? Would you agree that the BLMs reasoning is faulty? Would you feel that you would want to "punish" this speech? or are on the other side willing to punish those who would speak out against the BLMs position?

In either case, you're asking for the establishment of a moral norm to establish acceptable speech. And that, is tyranny. How can we support your case?

 

Scary, isn't it?

That's the real message: Think like "THIS", or be punished by the mob.