Extreme or objectionable views. Express or suppress?

[redrobbo]

If you maxist censorites had your way we wouldn't be able to enjoy great entertainment like this

 

http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/

 

I've never seen an episode of South Park. That's only because I don't possess a television set though.* I suppose that's a form of self-censorship though?

 

* I gave away my telly years ago now. There is though one thing that mystifies me about television programmes - can anyone tell me if they managed to dig Ena Sharples out alive when the viaduct collapsed?

[plekhanov]

I'm no John Mills and you are not listening:D Society dictates the norms of personal freedoms and almost all of those freedoms stop at the point of harming the society's agreed norms. Those norms can vary but it is ultimately the society at large that gives itself powers to prescribe laws and offer punishments to individuals who don't adhere to the laws so prescribed. The society can even then claim to be a free society because it is working for the freedom and interests of the whole rather than the individual to be an idiot.

 

I shall now withdraw my contribution to society till the morning, if it's not deemed illegal within the next five minutes.

Your every post comprehensively demonstrates that you are no John Stewart Mills, as epitomised by the one quoted in which you ineptly argue for the tyranny of the majority.

 

 

German society in the 1930s agreed that amongst other things:

• being jewish
  
• being disabled
  
• marrying someone of "different blood"
  
• being socialist, liberal, gay, a Jehovahs Witness...
  

all "harmed the societies agreed upon norms" and so set about limiting indivuduals freedoms to be any of the above. By your idiot logic this means Nazi Germany was a "free society" as it was all about "the whole rather than the individual".

 

Incidentally you seemed most unhappy with the tyranny of the majority when you hypocritically whined about the Swiss voting to ban minarets which prompted you to declare amongst other things:

 

"Mob rule preferred over the Law retep?"

 

Where was your respect for "the society at large that gives itself powers to prescribe laws and offer punishments to individuals who don't adhere to the laws so prescribed" then?

[Harleyman]

Who is to decide what is objectionable? Whoever these people are they would have a formidable amount of power and there's an old saying about power.

 

Freedom of speech whether objectionable or not is essential in any society that claims to be a democracy

[tab1]

Your every post comprehensively demonstrates that you are no John Stewart Mills, as epitomised by the one quoted in which you ineptly argue for the tyranny of the majority.

 

 

German society in the 1930s agreed that amongst other things:

• being jewish
  
• being disabled
  
• marrying someone of "different blood"
  
• being socialist, liberal, gay, a Jehovahs Witness...
  

all "harmed the societies agreed upon norms" and so set about limiting indivuduals freedoms to be any of the above. By your idiot logic this means Nazi Germany was a "free society" as it was all about "the whole rather than the individual".

 

Incidentally you seemed most unhappy with the tyranny of the majority when you hypocritically whined about the Swiss voting to ban minarets which prompted you to declare amongst other things:

 

"Mob rule preferred over the Law retep?"

 

Where was your respect for "the society at large that gives itself powers to prescribe laws and offer punishments to individuals who don't adhere to the laws so prescribed" then?

Yes my idiotic logic tells me that is how society is functioning today and it is truly idotic of you not to notice that in favour of some imagined freedom that doesn't in reality exist. All the melodramatics aside what has changed in Germany today to kerb the event repeating apart from the experience of society as a whole and a promise not to let it happen again?

 

Blinkered describes you well, go read what Mills says again and learn something about responsibility of the individual in moving from simply holding an opinion to taking action. Mills view that you seem to have missed is that Actions cannot be as free as ideas or viewpoints, and the law must limit all actions whose implementation would harm others etc. Idiot becomes you Plek boy when you get so worked up about your imagined self-righteousness that nothing else matters.

 

 

What has happened to my freedom to hold a view or opinion? Should that be censored because you misunderstand what John Mills was saying?

[Wildcat]

As I often tend to be I'm with John Stuart Mill on this issue, if anyone hasn't yet read it On Liberty is a superbly argued classic largely upon this subject, a free audio book of which can be found here.

 

The poll is poorly worded though, I believe some things should be left unsaid and consequently don't say them principally due to a desire not to upset people I care about. I simply think I should have the right to say pretty much anything I please without fear of officially sponsored persecution.

 

"pretty much" is rather vague.

 

Since you reference John Stuart Mill's On Liberty as the inspiration of your views.. How do you see the limitation he puts on freedom of speech in terms of harm?

 

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

 

This can be said to cover a whole range of things, from tobacco advertising, incitement to violence or criminality, even fast food advertising has victims.

 

Aside: In the case of copywrights I assume the argument for restrictions on usage essentially of ideas is because of the harm that not protecting a form of property would have on the economic system.

 

People dipping on to the thread simply asserting the right to freedom of speech like it is a supreme right or freedom that supercedes other rights are completely missing the complexity of the issue and by doing so devalue an understanding of the freedom of speech that we do need to protect and what we don't need.

 

Forgive my assumption but you seem to think free speech should be robustly defended. Does this include where it does cause harm? and under which circumstances?

[Wildcat]

Who is to decide what is objectionable? Whoever these people are they would have a formidable amount of power and there's an old saying about power.

 

Freedom of speech whether objectionable or not is essential in any society that claims to be a democracy

 

Freedom of speech without limitation would be a tyranny of ignorance, that would allow those with control over the media to dictate public opinion through lies. It would destroy business models and the economic system, which relies on ideas being a form of property.

 

It is only in a democracy that a balance between personal and collective freedoms and liberties can be achieved in the interests of and with the consent of society. It is only through a democratic system that freedom of speech can be limited without repression.

 

A degree of freedom of speech is essential for a democracy, but limitations on freedom of speech are also essential.

[Tony]

This thread isn't about freedom of speech.

[Wildcat]

This thread isn't about freedom of speech.

 

The original post asks about whether there are limitations on a right of expression. In what way do you see that question being distinct from freedom of speech?

[Tony]

I didn't say that it's distinct, just that it's not about FoS.

[rubydazzler]

And FIO, John Mills was an actor, John Stuart Mill was the notable feminist and writer of 'On Liberty'.