Wildcat Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 I don't think that I said that I thought that people should express them freely. in which case you are suppressing them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 3, 2010 Author Share Posted May 3, 2010 in which case you are suppressing them Please don't try to split hairs when there are none to split. I never said that I believe that any view should be freely said, in fact I actually noted that the time or place may not be appropriate. I hope that you understand and accept that response. Do you believe that some views should be suppressed? If so where is your benchmark, who is the arbiter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 The law on this one is about right. You can (in theory) say what you want unless it is aimed at inciting hatred or violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br8inend Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 If you are suggesting consequences for expressing certain views, then you are suppressing those views. Not really , I'm being realistic. people can say whatever they like. I'm not preventing anyone expressing their views. Its normal life , look at gordon browns bigot gate. He expressed a view and he has to pay the consequences . Same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 Please don't try to split hairs when there are none to split. I never said that I believe that any view should be freely said, in fact I actually noted that the time or place may not be appropriate. I hope that you understand and accept that response. Do you believe that some views should be suppressed? If so where is your benchmark, who is the arbiter? Like you then, I believe some views should be suppressed. The arbiter is simple, our democratic institutions. Anything less is to put a limit on democracy. The difficulty lies in where to draw the line. Basically the line has to be determined by an assessment of the damage that allowing a view to be expressed freely will do to society and whether and what form of suppressing that view is on balance better for society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 If extreme views win over the hearts and minds of the masses, it is a failure of the moderate voice that is to blame, not a lack of censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 Everyone should feel free to express any views they hold, having due regard for the circumstances of time and place. If those views are abhorrent, taboo or illegal, they have to expect the condemnation, ostracism or punishment that goes along with that expression. However, if, for instance, gay men had never dared to express their views about the love that dare not speak its name, they'd still have to be hiding in corners today. I understand the desire of people like Wildcat to see people being controlled and not allowed to express contrary views to those of the State, but I think it's a price worth paying. We need to know what's going on in people's heads. Suppression leads to revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 Not really , I'm being realistic. people can say whatever they like. I'm not preventing anyone expressing their views. Its normal life , look at gordon browns bigot gate. He expressed a view and he has to pay the consequences . Same thing. It is not an extreme example though. Do you think someone expressing paedophile views, should be allowed to do so? I took your argument about consequences to mean that if it was being run by your neighbour and you found out you would go gather some people with the metaphorical pitchforks to express your displeasure at their viewpoint. An understandable reaction, but one I would think would be more consistent or sensible if it included simply making the persons activity in expressing their paedophile views illegal and letting the state rather than the mob deal with such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 Everyone should feel free to express any views they hold, having due regard for the circumstances of time and place. If those views are abhorrent, taboo or illegal, they have to expect the condemnation, ostracism or punishment that goes along with that expression. However, if, for instance, gay men had never dared to express their views about the love that dare not speak its name, they'd still have to be hiding in corners today. I understand the desire of people like Wildcat to see people being controlled and not allowed to express contrary views to those of the State, but I think it's a price worth paying. We need to know what's going on in people's heads. Suppression leads to revolution. You seem to be on both sides of the debate conceding some views should be illegal.... but then you go on to say the opposite? Which is it? and where do you draw the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 You seem to be on both sides of the debate conceding some views should be illegal.... but then you go on to say the opposite? Which is it? and where do you draw the line? Are you using a different definition of 'express' from mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.